1

HUME PLANNING SCHEME REVIEW

(2010)

ADOPTED 25 October 2010

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................3 RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................................................6

SECTION A – STRATEGIC PLANNING CONTEXT............................................7 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................8 2.0 PREVIOUS PLANNING SCHEME REVIEW FINDINGS....................10 3.0 CURRENT STATE POLICY CONTEXT.............................................13 4.0 COUNCIL’S STRATEGIC CONTEXT ................................................19 5.0 PROGRAM OF CONTINUOUS REVIEW ..........................................24

SECTION B – PLANNING SCHEME PERFORMANCE AUDIT.........................28 6.0 HOW THE HUME PLANNING SCHEME IMPLEMENTS STATE

PLANNING POLICY...........................................................................29 7.0 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MSS...............................................30 8.0 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LOCAL POLICIES .........................38 9.0 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ZONES AND SCHEDULES...........50 10.0 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE OVERLAYS AND SCHEDULES....54 11.0 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS.......................60

SECTION C – REVIEW CONSULTATION.........................................................62 12.0 CONSULTATION...............................................................................63 13.0 RESULTS OF CONSULTATION .......................................................66

SECTION D – STRATEGIC WORK PROGRAM................................................73 14.0 STRATEGIC WORK PROGRAM.......................................................74 15.0 FURTHER STRATEGIC WORK PROGRAM.....................................77

SECTION E – APPENDICES .............................................................................79 APPENDIX A – Recommendations ...................................................................1 APPENDIX B – Previous 2000 Review .............................................................1 APPENDIX C – Planning Scheme Amendments...............................................1 APPENDIX D – Further Work prior to C110 (2009)...........................................1 APPENDIX E – Expert Panel Report from LPPF Project ..................................1 APPENDIX F – AECOM Consultation Report 2010 ..........................................1 APPENDIX G – Council Plan commitments for Strategic Planning Department..........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Four yearly monitoring, audit and reporting of changes to the Hume Planning Scheme have been made mandatory as a result of changes made in the Planning and Environment (General Amendment) Act 2004. The Hume Planning Scheme Review (“the 2010 Review”) has been prepared in accordance with the Department of Sustainability and Environment (now DPCD) Review of Planning Schemes Practice Note (February 2006). Once adopted the 2010 Review provides Hume City Council (“the Council”) with an overview of the performance of the Hume Planning Scheme since the initial planning scheme review report in 2000. The 2010 Review will also assist in understanding what policy changes have occurred since this time and the strategic context in which planning is undertaken. The report contains 5 key sections including:

• Strategic Context

• Review Consultation

• Planning Scheme Performance Audit

• Future Strategic Work Program

• Conclusions and Recommendations The Hume Planning Scheme sets out the policies and provisions for the use, development and protection of land within Hume City Council. Within this planning framework standard planning provisions exist which provide broad objectives, standards, policies which apply to all areas of Victoria. The planning framework also provides opportunity to reflect localised objectives and policies which Council has the ability to amend and influence, through the use of Local Planning Policies Framework (Municipal Strategic Statement and Local Policies), Schedules to Zones and Overlays, and finally through modifying particular provisions at Clause 50 of the Hume Planning Scheme. The 2010 Review process has included consultation with Council Staff and key stakeholders as well as a detailed desk top review of relevant reports and strategic documents. Since 1999/2000 when the introduction of the ‘new format’ Hume Planning Scheme was considered by an Independent Advisory Planning Panel a number of recommendations were made regarding necessary actions for Council to address. The 2010 Review has audited the recommendations from 2000 and Council action in relation to them. The 2010 Review finds that Council has had serious regard to the recommendations of previous Independent Panels and has either fully resolved or has significantly advanced the majority of matters raised. The major strategic issues/themes in Hume as identified in the current MSS and local policies are: Community Wellbeing

• Housing

• Health and Safety

4

• Community Services and Facilities Economy

• Employment

• Business

• Agriculture

• Melbourne Airport

• Industry Infrastructure

• Infrastructure Provision

• Freeways, Local Roads, Declared Arterial Roads

• Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks Environment

• Biodiversity

• Catchment and Land Management

• Resource Conservation

• Landscape

• Open Space

• Heritage The 2010 Review has looked at Council’s overall strategic context and found that since 2000 there have been significant shifts in the approach of both the State Government and Hume City Council to planning in general, as well as a significant amount of new strategy formulation leading to a new policy context for managing use and development within the municipality. The 2010 Review, has confirmed that while most of the above issues remain important strategic priorities, other issues have emerged since the last review including:

• Growth Area Planning

• An agreed long term land use vision for the Council

• Infill development

• Medium density housing

• Potential for increased residential densities in the CAD.

• The future of non-urban land in the City.

• Key sites

• Climate change

• Energy efficient building and subdivision design.

• Transport

• Sustainable housing

• Biodiversity

• Water supply

• Commercial and employment opportunities

5

Since 2000 there have also been changes to key Council documents; the Council Plan, Health and Wellbeing Plan and Hume City Plan 2030. The recent changes to legislation have reiterated the importance to bring together the planning process for all of the plans in line with council election cycles. This change seeks to enhance linkages between the Municipal Public Health & Wellbeing Plan, the Council Plan and Municipal Strategic. All of these documents influence the planning scheme in some way and all three contain information and strategic direction that now needs to be included in the Hume Planning Scheme. The changes locally are further compounded by the role of the State Government in planning in Victoria. The 2010 Review also explores the context of the State Government Planning Policy Framework and the many changes that have been undertaken at that level since 2000. Since this time there have been some very significant changes in the strategic objectives of the State Government, which will have significant ongoing and long term implications for Council. One change that is quite apparent is the recent changes to Hume City Council’s growth areas through the modification of the extent Melbourne’s urban growth boundary. The changes in policy shift from a State and Local Government perspective have not been adequately reflected with a new or significantly changed Hume Planning Scheme since 2000. This 2010 Review has analysed all of the strategic work which Council has undertaken and exhibited since the 2000 review. The extensive future work program contained within the Council Plan, Strategic Planning Department Plan as well as gaps identified throughout this review is indicative of a Council that is fully committed any policy gaps in its strategic work program.

6

RECOMMENDATIONS

• That Council adopt the report as the review required pursuant to section 12B (1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

• That Council forward the report to the Minister for Planning as required by section 12B (5) of the Planning & Environment Act 1987.

In terms of prioritising a work program, the following specific recommendations are made: MSS Amendment

• That the MSS be further edited and reformatted to insert completed strategic work.

• That components of the existing Clause 22 be edited and merged with Clause 21 in keeping with Making Local Policy Stronger guidelines.

• That all Local Policies be thoroughly reviewed to ascertain whether they are achieving their intended purpose; are consistent with the Practice Note on Local Policy; and are the most appropriate planning scheme tool to implement the strategic objective of the MSS.

Zone and Overlay Amendment(s)

• That all zones and schedules be reviewed to ascertain whether they are achieving their intended purpose; and are the most appropriate planning scheme tool to implement the strategic objective of the MSS.

• That all overlays and schedules be reviewed to ascertain whether they are achieving their intended purpose; and are the most appropriate planning scheme tool to implement the strategic objective of the MSS.

• That an amendment be prepared to implement zones and overlays (with schedules) arising from the new MSS.

• That all schedules to the Specific Provisions be reviewed to ascertain whether they are achieving their intended purpose.

Further Work To ensure that the current policy gaps within the Hume Planning Scheme are addressed it has been identified throughout the 2010 Review that there is a need for a;

• land use vision for Hume City Council.

• comprehensive Housing Strategy for Hume City Council.

• long term direction for Growth Area Planning.

• long term direction for Activity Centres within Hume City Council.

• long term land use based integrated Transport Strategy.

• clear stance on environmental management, sustainability and climate change.

• long term strategy for understanding driver’s of Hume’s economy and employment.

7

Section A – Strategic Planning Context

8

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The new format Hume Planning Scheme and MSS was approved by the Minister for Planning on 17 February 2000. Council is required, under section 12A (5) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, to undertake a review of its Municipal Strategic Statement. The report contains 5 key sections including:

• Strategic Context

• Review Consultation

• Planning Scheme Performance Audit

• Future Strategic Work Program

• Conclusions and Recommendations It provides Hume City Council (“Council”) with an overview of the performance of the Hume Planning Scheme since its last planning scheme review report in 2000. Once finalised and adopted by Council, this report will constitute the formal “Planning Scheme Review” of the Hume Planning Scheme as required under Section 12B of the Planning and Environment Act. This report is a review of the Hume Planning Scheme but does not address any planning permit operational issues. This issue is being continually monitored and analysed by Council as part of its regular review programs. The planning scheme review process has included consultation with Council Staff and key stakeholders as well as a detailed desk top review of relevant reports and strategic documents.

1.1 Scope of the Review Section 12B of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 requires Council to regularly review the planning scheme. On the 25 September 2007 section 12B of the Planning and Environment Act was changed to state a timeframe in which a Planning Scheme – and not only the MSS – must be reviewed. Clause 12B of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 now states that:

(1) A planning authority which is a municipal council must review its planning scheme –

(a) no later than one year after each date by which it is required to approve a Council Plan under section 125 of the Local Government Act 1989; or

(b) within such longer period as is determined by the Minister. As a result of changes made in the Planning and Environment (General Amendment) Act 2004, the Minister now requires the “Review Report” to address the entire planning scheme and not just the MSS. The ‘Continuous Improvement Review Kit 2006’ (DPCD) states that a Review Report must specifically address:

9

• Identifies the major planning issues facing the municipality;

• Demonstrates how the Municipal Strategic Statement (“the MSS”) implements State Planning Policy;

• Assesses the strategic performance of the scheme;

• Documents the strategic work that has been completed or carried out since the approval of the scheme and any additional work required to strengthen the strategic direction of the planning scheme;

• Articulates the monitoring and review which has been carried out;

• Outlines the consultation process and its outcomes;

• Makes recommendations arising from the review including:

− suggested changes to the objectives and strategies of the Local Planning Policy Framework.

− suggested changes to the use of Victoria Planning Provisions tools to achieve the strategies and ensure the objectives and desired outcomes are being met;

− new strategic work necessary to support future policy development or changes to the provisions of the scheme;

− suggested changes to improve operational and process practices;

− identifying any data on planning permit applications, or other data, that may need to be collected to inform the next review.

• The application and performance of the zones in the scheme;

• The application and performance of the overlays in the scheme;

• The detail of the schedules in the scheme. This Hume Planning Scheme Review (“the 2010 Review”) report responds to these matters.

10

2.0 PREVIOUS PLANNING SCHEME REVIEW FINDINGS

2.1 The Initial Hume Planning Scheme Panel Report (1999) The first ‘new format planning scheme’ (Victorian Planning Provision) compliant Hume Planning Scheme was approved in February 2000. The Panel’s overall assessment of the Hume Planning Scheme was that it was ‘adequate’ but achieved little beyond this description. The Panel report stated;

“In the Panel’s view, the main problems with the scheme derive directly from the decision made at the beginning of the process to merely translate the existing incomplete strategy, and postpone any strategic review until after the scheme was adopted. The result is a scheme that the Council acknowledges is out of date and does not address the municipality as a whole. … Unfortunately, the City has now lost the opportunity to recast both its strategy and its scheme in one major review. The City has in fact created extra work for itself by deferring the review; it is likely that substantial modification to the MSS will need to be put in place by way of a separate, major amendment once the review has been completed. The process followed by the Council must be confusing to the community, as it is unclear what strategies are to be reviewed, where they are to be found, and what their status is.

The Panel noted that during the next review that

“there are a number of unresolved issues that will require particular attention during this review. These issues relate to the identified need for:

• a more sophisticated understanding of the residential and rural residential land supply and demand that includes recognition of different markets in different areas of the municipality;

• a clearer definition of the role of the “green wedges” within the municipality, an explicit commitment to retaining them and specific strategies to preserve the landscape qualities that are an integral part of this role;

• acknowledgement of the difficulties faced by landowners pursuing agricultural activities within the municipality, and specific strategies for supporting these activities through the planning scheme and through other Council policies and programs.”

In approving the planning scheme, the then Minister for Planning identified a number of issues requiring the further attention of Council (Appendix B). These further work recommendations are discussed in some detail in Section D of this report.

11

Throughout the preceding 10 years Council has undertaken strategic work to address many of these gaps.

2.2 The First MSS Review (2003) – Amendment C58

Consistent with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, in 2003 Council undertook a limited review of the Hume MSS. This review was considered relatively minor as it was only an audit within the existing structure. This review was basic in nature and merely recommended that Council update the population statistics and amended references to activity centres to ensure that the Hume MSS conformed to Melbourne 2030 policy directions. The review resulted in some changes to local and state strategies, without addressing the identified problems identified by the 1999 Planning Panel. The minor changes identified by the 2003 review were implemented by Amendment (C58) to the Hume Planning Scheme; this was gazetted in May 2005.

2.3 Amendment C70 (2006)

Amendment C70 was undertaken in June 2006 which updated the Hume Planning Scheme to reflect a number of projects that had been completed. The amendment also updates a number of statistics, references and descriptions to reflect Hume City in 2005. Furthermore, it removed a number of actions and planning scheme responses (largely the applications of zones and overlays) which had been completed. The amendment also updated a number of structure plan maps contained within the MSS to reflect new classifications of activity centres within Hume City consistent with Melbourne 2030: Planning for Sustainable Growth activity centre classifications. This amendment however was not the result of a holistic review of the entire MSS and Planning Scheme.

2.4 Policy Neutral MSS Review – Amendment C110 (2009)

In mid 2009 Council undertook a policy neutral planning scheme amendment (number C110). The amendment did not introduce new policy, but merely streamlined existing policy statements. It also updated the current MSS to be clearer and more usable, aligning the MSS with best practice models. This ensured that the MSS is generally in accordance with the DPCD practice note, “Format of Municipal Strategic Statements” which provides a set of headings that reflects the strategic planning process used in developing an MSS. Although the use of the format is not mandatory, it has benefits in terms of consistency with the State Planning Policy Framework and ease of use and reference. Amendment C110 introduced a new MSS and configured a new framework for the Hume Planning Scheme based on the themes:

− Community Wellbeing,

− Economy,

− Infrastructure,

− Local Areas and;

12

− Particular Use and Development. The framework was also designed to accommodate future policy changes to the scheme resulting from this 12B report.

2.5 Conclusions Regarding Previous Review Recommendations As highlighted above, the initial introduction of the ‘new format’ Hume Planning Scheme was considered by an Independent Advisory Planning Panel in 1999. Other updates and ‘reviews’ have been undertaken in 2003 (C58), 2006 (C70) and in 2009 (C110) all of these were minor in nature with incremental administrative changes made to the MSS, and for this reason both were not the subject of an Independent Planning Panel (‘Panel’) process. Although there have been several up-dates over the past 10 years to the Hume Planning Scheme there has been limited fundamental review of the way in which policy has been updated. Much of the policy basis on which the scheme and MSS is premised is over 10 years old, and in many cases needs to be reviewed and revised.

13

3.0 CURRENT STATE POLICY CONTEXT The State policy context is informed by Melbourne 2030 and the Hume Growth Area Framework Plan, 2006 both of which have been implemented in the SPPF at Clause 12 (Metropolitan Development) and Clause 57 (Metropolitan Green Wedge Land). Since the gazettal of the Hume Planning Scheme and the preparation of the original “Review Report” in 2000, there has been considerable change at the state level including the introduction of a new suite of rural zones, a modified native vegetation framework, and the introduction of Clause 12 into the state section addressing metropolitan strategy.

Since 2003 the State Government have reviewed or released for consultation a significant amount of work. Hume City Council and its officers have prepared submissions to a range of different state reviews and indicatives. This exemplifies the significant level of policy change within planning by the State Government over the past 7 years. Given the breadth of subjects and varying degrees of importance these State Initiatives pose for Hume City Council there are a number of issues that will have significant impacts on the outcomes and policy review that will be assessed through this 12B review report. In addition, two important state government ‘process’ type reports have been released, being the “Cutting Red Tape” report of 2006; and the 2007 Ministerial report “Making Local Policy Stronger.” Both of these reports have implications for the planning scheme and the processing of permits under the planning scheme. This Review Report has been prepared in the context of the recommendations of both of those reports. The following is a brief overview of these two reports and other relevant state initiatives.

3.1 Melbourne 2030: Planning for Sustainable Growth

Melbourne 2030 is the State Government’s Metropolitan Strategy for Melbourne. It was released in October 2002. Melbourne 2030 has nine directions. Melbourne 2030 has significant implications for an MSS review particularly with regard to the development of policies and strategies concerned with:

− applying activity centre hierarchy to the local context,

− encouraging and managing activity centre development and change,

− protecting productive agricultural land and rural landscape in green wedge areas,

− reviewing the urban growth boundary,

− supply of land for industry energy, generation and employment,

− concentrating urban development within identified growth areas,

− developing Melbourne’s key transport gateways and freight links. and

− identifying parks and open space corridors to form part of a larger open space network.

Planning Scheme Amendment C58 (gazetted in May 2005) changed the Hume MSS to be consistent with the Melbourne 2030 policy directions.

14

3.2 Cutting Red Tape in Planning This report was released in August 2006 and was intended to streamline planning processes in the Victorian Planning System. The report advocates a continuous improvement model based around ‘monitoring’ to fill identified gaps and to improve current practices. The initial action by the State Government arising from the report was Amendment VC40 which removed the need for a planning permit for various minor matters including:

• Minor works associated with a dwelling including those currently captured by the heritage provisions or the small lots provisions of the scheme;

• Minor works in business areas.

• Fast tracking of planning scheme amendments

While for Council there was a limited immediate impact of the report. The Cutting Red Tape Report did influence various outcomes through the many policy directions that it introduced, such as Making Local Policy Stronger discussed at 3.4 of this report.

3.3 Making Local Policy Stronger Of critical importance has been Action 10 in the Cutting Red Tape in Planning report which included a number of actions to make ‘local policy’ stronger. To inform the implementation of these actions the Minister for Planning appointed a ‘Working Group’ made up of state and local government representatives.

The Working Group concluded that after ten years of operation the application of some components of the Victoria Planning Provisions needed immediate clarification and action. The key issues identified were:

• The development of voluminous local policies within the planning scheme;

• The need to clearly define and differentiate state and local interests;

• The importance of effective policies and controls to deliver strategic outcomes at both state and local level;

• The need to revise land use zones and overlays so that they better fit state and local strategic objectives; and

• The need for state and local government to work in partnership to achieve the improvements to the planning system.

The Working Group recommended the following Action Plan:

• Provide more certainty by making it easier to implement policy through planning controls.

• Revise the zones, overlays and particular provisions to provide more opportunity to express state and local policy outcomes. As a priority, review the residential zones and associated provisions.

15

• Make the State Planning Policy Framework clearer about how it should be implemented at the local level.

• Expedite the review of the State Planning Policy Framework recommended in Action 9 of Cutting red tape in planning.

• Progressively review planning schemes to clearly express state and local strategic intentions.

• Use zones, overlays and schedules rather than policy to control the use and development of land where appropriate.

• Make the requirement for the four year review of planning schemes more specific and structured.

• Increase the effectiveness of local policy by simplifying the way it is presented in planning schemes.

• Pilot a restructure of clauses 20, 21 and 22 of planning schemes to produce a single simplified section that provides the ‘local policy’ section of the planning scheme, with a range of Councils.

• Where direction is required in the restructured provision to guide the exercise of discretion under a planning control, the direction should be termed a ‘policy guideline’.

• Clarify when prescriptive provisions can be used.

• Develop guidelines to clarify when prescriptive rather than performance based provisions are appropriate and how they should be expressed.

In 2007/2008 Council was involved with Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE – now Department of Planning and Community Development, DPCD) and Planning Panels Victoria in a pilot program which reviewed local policies in accordance with the recommendations of the Making Local Policy Stronger report.

As part of this pilot program three of Council’s local policies that were reviewed. They were;

o 22.01 Industrial Local Policy,

o 22.07 Aged Accommodation Local Policy, and

o 22.09 Advertising Signs Local Policy.

There has been an amendment (C103) which updated these local planning policies within the Hume Planning Scheme. However, the Panels audit and recommendations did go further than just a simple ‘policy neutral‘ amendment for these LPPs, therefore some of the changes have not been made to the policies. Any recommended changes that were advised through this process which have not been incorporated into the Hume Planning scheme have been reiterated in this 2010 Review Report at section 9.0 The effectiveness of the Local Policies.

Overall there has currently the Hume Planning Scheme has not been reviewed taking into consideration the recommendations of the Making Local Policy Stronger. The recommendations in this “2010 Review Report” (refer Part D) have been framed in the

16

context of the above recommendations, especially the prospects of simplifying the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF).

3.4 New Residential Zones for Victoria The Making Local Policy Stronger report made a number of findings in relation to the interplay (and in some cases the miss-match) between planning policies and zones. In particular, the report found that the detail of residential zones did not always reflect the strategic intentions of State and local policies. The report recommended that, as a matter of priority, the suite of residential zones be reviewed. In February 2008, the Minister released a discussion paper on the three new residential zones as the first initiative in the Government’s five point action plan) to implement the recommendations of the Making Local Policy Stronger report. The proposed zones are: Substantial Change Areas

• Areas that present opportunities to substantially increase the number and diversity of dwellings. The form and design of new development can be specified. Appropriate services and facilities will be (or will become) available.

Incremental Change Areas

• Areas where change can continue to occur however development must respect the character of the area.

Minimal Change Areas

• Areas with limited opportunity for change because of identified development constraints, including special neighbourhood character, environmental and landscape values or infrastructure capacity. In these areas the impact of new development will be limited.

Hume City Council made a submission to the review in April 2008 and subsequent review in April 2009. To date there has not been a resolution of the residential zone review.

3.5 Melbourne @ 5 million

The State Governments release of Melbourne 2030: a Planning update – Melbourne@5Million in December 2008 was a response to new population projections which anticipate Melbourne growing to 5 million sooner than expected. The recommendations and conclusions of this report were further supported by the release of the Victorian Transport Plan at the same time. There were two main aspects that were considered as part of the Plan. One of these aspects was the enhancement of the poly centric city policies that were flagged by Melbourne 2030. Due to the scale of growth anticipated by the Plan the State Government introduced the concept to reclassify six key Principal Activity Centres to Central Activities Districts – Broadmeadows being one of these key centres. Broadmeadows Central Activities District (CAD) is set to become Melbourne’s northern capital over the next 20-30 years.

17

The other aspect explored by the Plan was to investigate moving the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), the plan identified Investigation Area’s (IA’s) to be considered for future growth. The Melbourne North IA included two IA’s; one surrounding Sunbury with a small component within Diggers Rest; and another IA surrounding the existing Hume Growth Corridor between Mickleham Road and the Hume highway/Hume Freeway and extending east into Whittlesea City Council and north into Mitchell Shire Council. The Plan called for submissions to assist in the consideration of drafting a reviewed the alignment of the UGB. Hume City Council made a submission in support of the expansion of the UGB within Hume and also advocated for areas outside of the nominated IA’s both for Sunbury and the Hume Growth Corridor.

3.6 Delivering Melbourne’s Newest Sustainable Communities (DMNSC) The report Delivering Melbourne's Newest Sustainable Communities was released on 17 June 2009. The report advocated and mapped the areas for inclusion to the Urban Growth Boundary, as well as introduced a new framework for vegetation, infrastructure and transport in growth areas. The following are specifically relevant to Hume;

• The alignment of the UGB around Sunbury and the Hume Growth Corridor, and,

• The alignment of the Outer Metropolitan Road (OMR) The changes identified through the Delivering Melbourne’s Newest Sustainable Communities report have significant implications for the future direction of land use and planning policy within Hume City Council. Any change to the existing UGB would be a significant change in policy direction which requires further research and integration into the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF). Ideally to integrate this additional review as part of the full Planning Scheme Review, this will result from this report. The OMR will present an additional policy consideration that will ultimately influence land use planning in Hume City, and once finalised, it will be an important aspect for the future direction of land use and planning policy. The changes to the Urban Growth Boundary were approved in early August 2010. These changes pose significant implications for service provision and future land use planning for Hume City Council.

3.7 Conclusions Regarding Recent State Initiatives In one respect, recent State Initiatives have limited implications for this review as the modifications introduced have been introduced on a state-wide basis (eg Overlay Changes; Planning Permit Exemptions etc). In another respect the state initiatives may have significant long term implications for Council especially for Hume City Councils growth through the Delivering Melbourne’s Newest Sustainable Communities and Melbourne@5million. These issues need to be

18

resolved through integrated, planning by Council to ensure that the future needs of its community are met. Similarly there are very significant changes and implications for Hume’s policy statements and the nature of planning through the other reviews and state initiatives. In the meantime, Council still needs to ensure that the content and structure of its Municipal Strategic Statement, Local Policies and its schedules are consistent with these recent initiatives especially ‘Making Local Policy Stronger’.

Recommendation: o Review the Hume Planning Scheme taking into consideration the recommendations

of the ‘Making Local Policy Stronger’ report. o Undertake integrated growth area planning to ensure Hume City Council’s ability to

meet the needs of its community.

19

4.0 COUNCIL’S STRATEGIC CONTEXT

This section of the report identifies key land use strategic directions, initiatives and actions that are contained in strategic and governance documents of Council that have been prepared since the last planning scheme review. In recent years the State Government and Council have worked to bring Council’s three statutory documents together into the planning process for Health & Wellbeing Plans, Council Plans, and 12B Planning Scheme Review in line with council election cycles and generally seeking to enhanced linkages between the three Plans. The relationship between these three key statutory documents can be explained diagrammatically as follows;

In undertaking this 12B Review, Council’s statutory documents; the MSS, the Council Plan (2009 – 2014), the Health and Wellbeing Plan (2009) and Hume City Plan 2030 Council’s other key document were reviewed.

4.1 Hume City Plan 2030 The Hume City Plan 2030 was prepared in 2004, and reviewed in 2009. It establishes a long term vision and puts forward a recommended action plans to achieve this vision. The Hume City Plan 2030 was developed by the community for the community to ensure that by the year 2030, “Hume City will be recognised as the ideal location for healthy living, lifelong learning, employment, recreation, enjoyment and prosperity”.

20

The intention of the Hume City Plan 2030 is to guide the development of its four year Council Plans, annual budgets and strategies. The stated Vision of the Hume City Plan 2030 is;

‘Hume City will be recognised as a leader in achieving social, environmental and economic outcomes with a common goal of connecting our proud community and celebrating the diversity of Hume.’

Following the 2008 review, actions have been grouped in accordance with the following key themes: 1. Prosperity of the City 2. Community Wellbeing 3. Appearance of the City and Environment 4. Council Leadership At this stage there is limited correlation or consistency between the MSS and the Hume City Plan 2030. This is something that needs to be addressed through any rewrite of the Hume Planning Scheme or LPPF.

4.2 Council Plan 2009-2013

A revised Hume City Council Plan was endorsed in June 2009. Under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1989 Council is required to approve a new Council Plan within six months after each general election. The next election is scheduled for November 2012 and so it is anticipated that a new Council plan will be written and adopted by June 2013.

Section 12A of the Planning and Environment Act, 1987 requires that the Hume MSS be consistent with the current Corporate (Council) Plan although there is no requirement for it to be detailed in the MSS. Nevertheless, best practice would involve Councils including relevant parts of the Council Plan pertaining to land use planning within the MSS. The current Council Plan (2009-2013) articulates the Vision for the municipality as follows:

‘Hume City Council will be recognized as a leader in achieving social, environmental and economic outcomes with a common goal of connecting our proud community and celebrating the diversity of Hume’

The ten Strategic Objectives of Council for the Hume City Council Plan 2009–2013 are listed under the four Themes of the Hume City Plan 2030 (Revised 2009): 1. Council Leadership

1.1. Accountable Leadership

2. Prosperity of the City 2.1. Economy 2.2. Transport 2.3. Learning

21

3. Community Wellbeing 3.1. Social Inclusion 3.2. Health, Safety and Wellbeing 3.3. Arts, Leisure and Recreation

4. Appearance of the City and Environment

4.1. Appearance of the City 4.2. Asset Management 4.3. Natural Environment

As detailed in Section 4.3 of this report, the 2009-2013 Council Plan contains an extensive suite of projects of direct relevance to the planning scheme that Council has committed itself to undertaking in 2009/10. 2010 Planning Scheme Review Observation:

• The Vision for Hume as articulated in the Scheme at Cl 21.04 refers to the 2004-2008 Hume Council Plan.

• The current 2009-2013 Council Plan has a modified Vision for Hume and therefore the MSS should be modified accordingly.

• It is noted that the majority of projects identified in the Council Plan are on Council’s work program.

4.3 Hume City Council Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan (2009)

In late 2009 Council adopted its Municipal Public health and Wellbeing Plan (MPHWP) in accordance with the new requirements of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic.). The recent changes to the Health and Wellbeing Act (2008) brings the planning process for Health & Wellbeing Plans in line with council election cycles and seeks enhanced linkages between the Municipal Public Health & Wellbeing Plan, the Council Plan and Municipal Strategic Statement, thereby placing health and wellbeing at the forefront of Council business.

The purpose of the Municipal Public Health Plan is to provide strategic direction to Council by identifying the priority issues and health and wellbeing needs of the Hume community. It also outlines Council’s plan of action for the next three years in response to these needs and actions and in doing so it provides an opportunity to improve community health and wellbeing through the enhanced integration of Council’s leadership and service provision role. As identified above, the Health and Wellbeing Plan identifies Urban Planning, Transport Accessibility and Environmental Sustainability as priority issues. The plan identifies actions within these areas which have specific implications for the Planning Scheme as follows:

Urban Planning (related) Actions: Strategic Objective 4.1: To implement physical activity programs and provide

opportunities that will increase and sustain participation

22

4.1.1 Development and implementation of the Walking and Cycling Strategy

4.1.2 In partnership with key stakeholders, agencies and networks, lead and implement projects that encourage sustained physical activity and healthy by design principles

Outcome (4.1): Improve the physical health and wellbeing of the community in Hume City

Strategic Objective 5.1 Proactively plan for and prepare response to emerging

public health and wellbeing needs of our changing demographic

5.1.1 Hume City Council will take a leadership role in relation to

public health and community infrastructure and service planning by:

� Using systems that identify population mix and movement

� Monitor emerging public health and wellbeing needs to plan for economic, built, natural and socio-cultural environments.

� Undertake comprehensive assessment of existing social infrastructure, gap identification and analysis of location requirements for infrastructure needs

� Internally consulting with key departments to identify and quantify anticipated requirements

� Externally consulting with key stakeholders including service recipient and service providers to quantify implications of the changing demographic

5.1.2 Identify, coordinate and respond to opportunities to

advocate for Hume’s needs in response to the changing demographic.

Outcome (5.1): Planned response to our emerging public health and wellbeing needs.

2010 Planning Scheme Review Observation:

• Council’s Health and Wellbeing Plan appropriately acknowledges urban planning, transport and environmental sustainability actions. While the Plan is not directly referenced in the Scheme the majority of projects identified in the Plan are on Council’s work program.

4.4 Conclusions Regarding Council’s Strategic Context

23

Council has three statutory governance documents that are required by legislation; Council Plan, Health and Wellbeing Plan and the MSS. The recent changes to legislation have reiterated the importance to bring together the planning process for all of the plans in line with council election cycles. This change seeks to enhance linkages between the Municipal Public Health & Wellbeing Plan, the Council Plan and Municipal Strategic. All of these documents influence the planning scheme in some way and all three contain information and strategic direction that now needs to be included in the Hume Planning Scheme at the earliest opportunity.

Recommendations: The preparation of a revised MSS needs to seek to integrate; o directions articulated in the current Hume City Plan 2030, o commitments and directions articulated in the current Council Plan, and, o Health and Wellbeing Plan and its list of Actions.

24

5.0 PROGRAM OF CONTINUOUS REVIEW

Council has maintained a rolling program of reviewing the performance of its scheme through the day to day monitoring and update of the Planning Scheme. Council recognises that the dynamic nature of strategically based planning schemes requires a constant and ongoing monitoring and review. The monitoring and review since 2000 has consisted of:

• Adopted planning scheme amendments (2000 – 2010)

• Current planning scheme amendments

• Commissioning of further strategic work

• Development of an on-going strategic work program

5.1 Adopted Planning Scheme Amendments (2000 – 2010)

Since the first review of the scheme in 2000, there have been over one hundred planning scheme amendments approved or considered by Council. These are summarised at Appendix C. 2010 Planning Scheme Review Observation:

• The number of Amendments advanced by Council since the last formal review of the scheme has been significant and reflects Council’s desire to continually improve and update the scheme based on strategic research.

• It is noted that the Independent Panels that considered a number of these Amendments also made recommendations for further work to be undertaken to address unresolved issues.

5.2 Relevant Planning Scheme Amendments

The following panel recommendations (with respect to the MSS and Policy statements within the scheme) have been processed and considered by Council: 5.2.1 Amendment C4 (2004) Purpose of Exhibited Amendment: Amendment C4 to the Hume Planning Scheme proposed to rezone land at 1170

Mickleham Road, Greenvale from Rural 1 to Residential 1 to enable development of the Greenvale Rise estate. The Greenvale reservoir an important potable water supply catchment was located immediately south of this site. The amendment also included a Development Plan Overlay covering the whole of the amendment site and a Vegetation Protection Overlay to protect a stand of remnant Red Gums. Observations of the Panel: The Panel recommended that the Amendment C4 should not proceed. The three key reasons being;

25

1. There is insufficient strategic basis for the supporting the Greenvale Rise

development in the State Planning Policy Framework and Hume’s Municipal Strategic Statement and Draft Hume General Plan.

2. The proposal would not provide a net community benefit to the residents of the municipality and other users of the drinking waters of Greenvale Reservoir.

3. The proposal posed an unacceptable risk to the water quality of the metropolitan domestic water supply stored at Greenvale Reservoir.

The Panel also made a number of comments regarding; � Protection of Greenvale Reservoir

Melbourne Water should use the mechanisms available to it to ensure permanent protection of the metropolitan water supply stored at Greenvale Reservoir.

Hume City Council should assist this effort by regulating the long term use of land in the natural catchment of Greenvale Reservoir. The role and importance of the Greenvale Reservoir and its environmental protection should be recognised in the new Hume General Plan and Council’s planning scheme.

Status of Amendment: Following the public release of the Panel Report in 2001, the proponent and Melbourne Water undertook a series of negotiations to overcome the contamination risk issue. In April 2002 Melbourne Water reached agreement with the planning scheme amendment proponents. This included a revised proposal to remove land within the Greenvale Reservoir catchment form development consideration. This reduced the overall number of lots and changed the nature of the development. Council adopted the C4 Amendment subject to changes to the Panel’s recommendations in May 2002. The Council report adopting C4 stated that the adoption of the amendment was on the basis that, the risk of contamination to water quality had been alleviated. Final gazettal occurred on 31 January 2003.

2010 Planning Scheme Review Comments: Since the time of the C4 Amendment further issues with the management and protection of the Greenvale Reservoir have been identified by Hume City Council and Melbourne Water. There have been a number of ongoing complex issues that have required consideration since Amendment C4. Council are currently working with Melbourne Water to ensure that there are appropriate tools utilised to protect the Greenvale Reservoir into the future.

26

Strategic Planning officers are working on a planning scheme amendment with Melbourne Water and DPCD to apply an ESO to the Greenvale Reservoir catchment.

Recommendation: o That the Greenvale Reservoir catchment is recognised for its importance in the

Hume Planning Scheme .

5.2.2 Amendment C45(2) – Hume Neighbourhood Character Study Purpose of Exhibited Amendment:

In mid 2001, Council resolved to undertake the Hume Neighbourhood Character Study (HNCS), focussing on the areas of Westmeadows, Tullamarine and Sunbury. The purpose of the Study was to provide an overview of the neighbourhood character of parts of Hume City that have a residential zoning, then to undertake a detailed study of three defined areas. After placing a draft study on public exhibition for a period of two months, Council formally adopted the HNCS in mid 2003. The HNCS provided the basis for Amendment C45 (Parts 1 and 2) and was prepared by Council in association with Planisphere. Both the HNCS and the expert evidence provided at the Hearing detailed the background to the project and the methodology that was adopted. Westmeadows was one of three areas subject to detailed investigation and consultation in relation to identifying and protecting neighbourhood character. Within Westmeadows, the study identified two neighbourhood character “precincts”, generally reflecting the differing styles and age of development as well as topography. These precincts were carried over into the policy included in Part 2 of the Amendment. Observations of the Panel: Issues raised by the Panel include its strategic justification, the need to consider its implications within a broader housing strategy for the municipality and the adequacy of using a local policy to achieve Council’s neighbourhood character objectives. While the Panel believed that there is adequate strategic justification for introducing some form of neighbourhood character control in the Westmeadows precinct, it raised concerns about the form and content of the proposed Amendment and questioned whether it will provide an appropriate mechanism to achieve Council’s neighbourhood character objectives. The Panel recommended that Amendment C45 Part 2 should be adopted subject to a range of recommendations. The recommendations were concerned with

27

improving the MSS references, reviewing whether an appropriate VPP overlay should be applied to the area affected by the proposed local planning policy, and improving the content and effectiveness of that policy. Status of Amendment: The amendment was adopted with a range of changes post panel which were generally consistent with the Planning Panels recommendations and as a result of discussions with DPCD on the LPP. The amendment was adopted by Council 25 October 2004, final gazettal occurred on the 22 December 2005.

2010 Planning Scheme Review Comments: The Local Planning Policies that were adopted as part of this amendment should be reviewed to see how they are ‘tracking’ in the 5 years since adoption. It would be interesting to see whether or not there have been associated outcomes on the ground because of the policies. Such an interrogation of the issues should better resolve the Panel’s concerns that the LPPs were not the best tools to achieve outcomes on the ground. The broader housing strategy criticism has not been resolved to date, however, it is anticipated that in 2011 Council will commence a housing strategy.

Recommendation: o Review the LPP’s (22.13, 22.14 and 22.15) with regards to whether there are more

appropriate VPP tools available. o Undertake a broader housing strategy .

5.5 Conclusions Regarding Program of Continuous Review

Since 2000 there have been over 100 completed planning scheme amendments to the Hume Planning Scheme. This 2010 review has analysed all of the strategic work which Council has undertaken and exhibited since the last review. The review finds that Council has taken very seriously the criticisms and recommendations of previous Panels and has attempted to redress any shortcomings and to fix any gaps. The extensive future work program is indicative of a Council that is fully committed to further fill any identified gaps in its strategic work plan.

28

Section B – Planning Scheme Performance Audit

29

6.0 HOW THE HUME PLANNING SCHEME IMPLEMENTS STATE PLANNING POLICY

6.1 SPPF Analysis

This analysis of the SPPF has taken place based on the 2009 SPPF structure and not the SPPF that was gazetted on 21 September 2010. The State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) is made up of the following sections; o Clause 11 – Introduction, Goal and Principals. o Clause 12 – Metropolitan Development o Clause 14 – Settlement o Clause 15 – Environment o Clause 16 – Housing o Clause 17 – Economic Development o Clause 18 – Infrastructure o Clause 19 – Particular Use and Development

Overall the Hume City Council’s Planning Scheme and MSS are generally consistent with the objectives and strategies contained within the SPPF. On review it is apparent that in the existing Hume MSS and Planning Scheme there is a very strong correlation between some state and local issues such as urban growth (Clause 14.01) of the SPPF and Framework Plan in the MSS (Clause 21.01). Both set out areas for expansion and expected settlement areas, Hume’s Framework Plan is now inconsistent with the new growth areas and UGB (Gazetted August 2010) and needs to be revised as soon as practical. There are also parallels between the SPPF and the LPPF where both policies discuss the economy (Clause 17.01 and Clause 21.03). It is best practice to have correlating policies with consistent policy intent and Council’s policy directions giving ‘local flavour’ for day-to-day decision making. One area that needs to be improved in particular is Council’s policy directions in regarding settlement objectives such as medium density housing at Clause 16.02 and retailing at Clause 17.01. Whilst the Hume LPPF does take into consideration some of these issues, there could be clearer discussion of these issues, which would result in better clarification of Council’s policy direction to inform decision making. To introduce such policy however it would be necessary to have a robust Housing Strategy to inform Council’s position.

Clarity and consistency between the state and local sections can be achieved by maintaining the ordering and headings in the MSS using the key themes linked to the State Planning Policy Framework as currently exists (undertaken in C110). It is however important that when undertaking a rewrite of Council’s LPPF that regard is given to the recommendations of ‘Making Local Policy Stronger’.

Recommendation: o That a full rewrite of the LPPF continue to be consistent with the SPPF o That the recommendations of the Making Local Policy Stronger report be a key

principal of the LPPF rewrite.

30

7.0 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MSS 7.1 General discussion of the role of the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS)

The DPCD practice note, “Writing a Municipal Strategic Statement” (September 2010) discusses that the role of the MSS. The MSS establishes the strategic framework for the municipality and should show it supports and implements the SPPF. The SPPF and MSS together should provide the strategic basis for the application of zones, overlays and particular provisions in the planning scheme. The MSS provides the broad local basis for making decisions under a planning scheme. Acting as a planning authority or responsible authority, a council must aim to achieve the objectives and follow the strategies set out in the MSS. The MSS should be continually refined as the planning authority develops and revises its strategic direction. The MSS must be taken into account when preparing amendments to a planning scheme or making decisions under a scheme. The role of an MSS is different from the role of a Local Planning Policy (LPP). The local strategic direction of a planning scheme should be contained in the MSS and not in an LPP. An LPP guides how discretion in a zone, overlay or a particular provision will be exercised. An LPP should only be taken into account when making a decision about a planning permit application and it must directly relate to a permit trigger in the planning scheme.

7.2 Structure

The DPCD practice note provides a set of headings that reflects the strategic planning process used in developing an MSS. Although the use of the format is not mandatory, it has benefits in terms of consistency with the State Planning Policy Framework and ease of use and reference. In 2009 Hume undertook Planning Scheme Amendment C110 which introduced a better structure to resolve the previous issues around the configuration of the MSS and was better aligned with best practice. In a new practice note “Writing a Municipal Strategic Statement” (September 2010) released during the drafting of the Hume Planning Scheme Review 2010 also proposes slightly different MSS format. On reviewing the documentation it is clear that the changes introduced by C110 were consistent with the recommended structure. Given that Council has undertaken a recent amendment to the planning scheme to streamline the structure – it is not proposed to review the layout or formal structure of the MSS other than to make changes to the content of the MSS.

31

The following table highlights the key headings proposed in the Practice Note format together with those used in the Hume MSS.

Practice Note Format Hume Format

21.01 Municipal Profile 21.01 Municipal Profile

21.02 Key Influences 21.02 Community Wellbeing

21.03 Vision – Strategic Framework 21.03 Economy

21.04 Objectives – Strategies – Implementation

21.04 Infrastructure

21.04-1 Settlement 21.05 Environment

21.04-2 Environment 21.06 Local Areas

21.04-3 Housing 21.07 Activity Centres

21.04-4 Economic Development 21.08 Particular Use and Development

21.04-5 Infrastructure 21.09 Reference Documents

21.04-6 Particular Use and Development

21.05 Monitoring and Review

There are significant variations in the approaches that were adopted by Councils when preparing their new format planning schemes, reflecting the uncertainty about how to best accommodate the changes required by the planning reform process. One of the characteristics of many schemes, however, was the inclusion of substantial background information that has proved to be of little assistance in the administration of the schemes. Many of the planning scheme reviews that have, or are being undertaken, have focussed on reducing the level of unnecessary and irrelevant information, thereby improving the clarity and usability of the schemes. This is also a key outcome of the ‘Making local policy stronger’ report.

It is further noted that one of the key recommendations of “Making Local Policy Stronger” is to streamline (and combine) the MSS and local policies – this has not occurred in the Hume Planning Scheme yet – it is anticipated that this will be a key recommendation of this 12B report.

7.3 Content

This section provides a discussion of the content of the MSS. Clause 21.01 Municipal Profile The Municipal Profile has a brief description of where Hume City Council is located within the context of Melbourne and surrounding municipalities. It has a brief description of the key influences on land uses within the municipality, as well as out lining a MSS vision, Hume City Plan 2030 (Community) vision and Council’s Plan 2008 -2013 Vision. It also includes a Strategic Framework Plan at the end of the Clause.

32

Audit Comments

− The Strategic Framework Plans are dated and should be reviewed in accordance with appropriate community consultation.

− There are a number of vision’s for Hume – these should be refined and updated along with an overarching Land Use Vision should be formulated that is clear and consistent with the numerous Plan’s relevant for Hume City Council.

− It is envisaged that a new MSS will utilise framework plans for many more spatially specific elements. Importantly, the proposed plans will be propositional, in that they propose outcomes, rather than simply describing a situation. This should create the opportunity for reduced text content, better readability and clarity for users of the MSS.

The content and policy intent within this clause is largely outdated or redundant. This clause should be rewritten to be more relevant and to reflect the policy change that has occurred in Hume in the last 10 years. This will include better reflecting the Hume City Plan 2030, Council Plan 2008-2013 and the Hume City Council Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan (2009).

Recommendation: o Clause 21.01 be rewritten to remove redundant and outdated information

Clause 21.02 Community Wellbeing This clause identifies the following community wellbeing issues facing the municipality;

• Housing

• Community Services and Facilities Audit Comments Since 2000, when most of the content of the MSS was formulated, there have been significant policy shifts regarding community wellbeing and its relationship with urban planning. This clause needs to be significantly reviewed for content, as well as incorporating new strategies regarding other new policy initiatives including health and wellbeing through urban design. In particular when revising the policy content it should refer to existing strategies including Hume City Council Community Safety Strategy 2009-2010 and Housing Diversity Strategy’s endorsed principals.

Recommendation: o Clause 21.02 be rewritten to remove redundant and outdated information o Include information from existing strategies that support this clause where

appropriate.

33

Clause 21.03 Economy

This clause identifies the following economic issues facing the municipality;

• Employment

• Business

• Agriculture

• Melbourne Airport

• Industry

Audit Comments For each of the above issues the clause provides an overview, key issues, objectives, strategies and implementation measures. These key issues and economic development issues are still crucial to Hume City Council. It is important to review this clause in reflection of any new changes that have emerged due to the fragile economic climate that currently exists. Generally the information contained within this clause is still relevant although could be updated, along with more specific changes such as;

o Statements supporting tourism related activities across Hume. o Acknowledging Hume’s commitment to ‘Place Management’ efforts in

Broadmeadows, Cragieburn and Sunbury. o Commentary regarding the Broadmeadows Neighbourhood Renewal project that

we are working on in partnership with DHS.

Recommendation: o Clause 21.03 should be updated to reflect contemporary issues and to rewrite to

remove redundant and outdated information. o Include information from existing strategies that support this clause where

appropriate.

Clause 21.04 Infrastructure This clause identifies the following infrastructure issues facing the municipality;

• Infrastructure Provision

• Freeways, Local Roads, Declared Arterial roads

• Public Transport

• Pedestrian and Bicycle Network Audit Comments Since 2000, when most of the content of the MSS was formulated, there have been significant policy shifts regarding infrastructure provision. This clause needs to be significantly reviewed for content, to incorporate strategies such as Council’s Wayfinding Strategy, Walking and Cycling Strategy, and commentary on the Outer Metropolitan Ring Road etc. Much of the information retained in this clause is out of date and should be removed, with appropriate new information incorporated.

34

Recommendation: o Clause 21.04 should be updated to reflect contemporary issues and to rewrite to

remove redundant and outdated information. o Include information from existing strategies that support this clause where

appropriate.

Clause 21.05 Natural Environment and Built Environment

This clause identifies the following environmental issues facing the municipality:

• Biodiversity

• Catchment and Land Management

• Resource Conservation

• Landscape

• Open Space

• Heritage Audit Comments Since 2000, when most of the content of the MSS was formulated, there have been significant policy shifts regarding the natural and built environments. This clause needs to be significantly reviewed for content changes particularly having regard to the strategies that have been completed such as Natural Heritage Strategy, Land Management Strategy, Green Wedges Phase 1 and Open Space Strategy. A possible consideration would also be splitting Natural Environment from the Built Environment aspect. There are a number of strategies that need have policy objectives that need to be integrated into the MSS such as, Natural Heritage Strategy, Pathway’s to Sustainability and Green Wedge Phase 1.

Recommendation: o Clause 21.05 content should be completely rewritten updated to reflect contemporary

issues and to rewrite to remove redundant and outdated information. o Investigate whether or not the two themes ‘Natural Environment’ and ‘Built

Environment’ should be rewritten.

Clause 21.06 Local Areas

This clause identifies a series of precincts that are within Hume City Council. They are;

21.06-1 Broadmeadows and Meadow Heights 21.06-2 Craigieburn and Roxburgh Park Neighbourhood 21.06-3 Dallas, Coolaroo & Campbellfield Neighbourhood 21.06-4 Gladstone Park and Tullamarine Neighbourhood 21.06-5 Greenvale, Attwood and Westmeadows Neighbourhood 21.06-6 Rural Areas 21.06-7 Somerton

35

21.06-8 Sunbury Audit Comments During the 2008 consultation and revision of the MSS that was originally undertaken it was identified that these need significant revision, there are a number of gaps and localities that are not necessarily covered explicitly. There were a series of new precincts proposed as part of the internal workshops; these precincts need to be tested through community consultation to resolve the relevance of the boundaries. This would significantly change all aspects of this clause, and would result in a significant rewrite of these sub-clauses.

Recommendation: o Review of localities and rewrite accordingly. o Undertake reflections of whether the Local Areas section remains relevant for

planning considerations.

Clause 21.07 Activity Centres Audit Comments In 2004, a review was undertaken of the City’s activity centres. The Hume Activity Centre Hierarchy Study (2004), established a hierarchy to provide a clear decision making framework for Hume’s activity centre network development over a twenty year period. The hierarchy of activity centres aims to achieve a wide range of shopping, entertainment and community services accessible to the local and wider community. Throughout this review it has become apparent that Hume City Council’s Activity Centre Hierarchy (2004) plan is increasingly becoming outdated and redundant. This is due to a number of reasons, not least of all the recent announcements of Melbourne@5million and a shift in the UGB. These dynamics will fundamentally change the location and way in which Sunbury and the Hume Corridor is shaped which will have implications for Activity Centres across the municipality. It is also important that Council, having recently completed a Retail Strategy, now research and develop an Activity Centres Strategy that considers broader land use mix, transport and accessibility issues. It is recommended that a new document be undertaken to understand Activity Centres in Hume given these changes. This document should also consider the framework and the understand how the previous Activity Centre Hierarchy (2004) has evolved, in particular having regard to the recent changes designations of Broadmeadows as a CAD, the commenced development of the Craigieburn Town Centre.

Recommendation: o Undertake a strategy to understand the long term direction for Activity Centres within

Hume City Council. o Revise Clause 21.07 once this strategy has been undertaken.

36

Clause 21.08 Particular Use and Development

Audit Comments This clause has begun to give commentary to particular uses and developments that are relevant within Hume City Council. Identified as relevant currently are;

• Design and Built form

• Gaming Once the LPP section is consolidated there is the possibility that this particular uses and development section may extend over a broader range of issues. Clause 21.09 Reference Documents

It is also notable that the MSS includes a standalone clause listing Reference Documents (21.09) Although this is not provided for in the Practice Note Format, many Councils have included a consolidated list of Reference Documents in their MSS’s. Alternatively, some have included references to these documents within the body of the MSS and in association with the discussion of the relevant issue. The list of reference documents should be reviewed and analysis should occur regarding their relevance to the Hume Planning Scheme. Many of these documents are quite old and have been the subject of revision or in some cases have been made redundant by new policies and policy shifts. The full list needs to be reviewed and in some cases deleted from the Hume Planning Scheme. Similarly, there are a number of new documents that need to be assessed and where appropriate included within the Hume Planning Scheme.

Recommendation: o Complete review of clause 21.09 reference documents and rewrite is necessary.

7.4 Further Work Section within the MSS A range of strategic issues is typically included in an MSS and many schemes include further strategic work or “supporting actions” at the end of the implementation section. This is a helpful inclusion as it provides the work program for the future arising out of the gaps which have emerged from the full consideration of each issue. Many of the matters included as “Other Actions” in the pre C110 planning scheme have either been commissioned or completed. Any elements not yet done need to be prioritised as part of a future work program. Many of the actions were also non-land use related and were rightly removed from the Planning Scheme. Appendix D outlines the work that was contained within the previous MSS. Whilst an ongoing work program is considered important as it is the rolling strategic work program for the Council, it is considered unnecessary for the MSS to outline the specific work.

37

It is noteworthy that the Hume scheme utilised this opportunity and the use of this section until Planning Scheme Amendment C110 (2009) deleted this section. A further work program and action plan will form part of this 12B Review, which will be incorporated into wider Council programs (including Council Plan and Departmental Plan) In order to undertake further work programming it will be important to set up an ongoing review of work undertaken to adequately fill gaps – however the best position for this program is in the Strategic Planning Departmental Plan

7.5 Conclusions Regarding the MSS The structure and format of the MSS was modified (via Amendment C110) to better reflect state current government ‘best practice’. That said the actual content of the MSS is now ten years old and aspects of it are tired and dated and need to be reviewed to reflect current issues. While the structure is reasonably sound, the content needs updating. It is considered that the current MSS contains some information that is merely descriptive in nature and which does not assist in decision making. Whilst Council has already undertaken a recent amendment to remove of much of this descriptive content, there is still some redundant and descriptive information that could be removed without jeopardising the operation of the scheme.

Recommendation: o MSS should be rewritten to reflect contemporary issues and remove redundant

information. o That the recommendations of the Making Local Policy Stronger report be a key

principal of the LPPF rewrite. o Rewriting of the MSS must have regard to the DPCD practice note ”Writing a

Municipal Strategic Statement” (September 2010).

38

8.0 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LOCAL POLICIES

8.1 General discussion of the role of a Local Planning Policy A Local Planning Policy (LPP) has a defined role in the planning schemes. A Local Planning Policy guides decision making in relation to a specific discretion in a zone or overlay. It helps the responsible authority and other uses of the scheme to understand how a particular discretion is likely to be exercised. With the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) it forms the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) in the planning scheme. The role of an LPP is different from the role of the MSS. The local strategic direction of a planning scheme should be contained in the MSS and not the LPP. An LPP guides how discretion in a zone, overlay, or a particular provision will be exercised. A Local Planning Policy is not a control and cannot remove the discretion under the relevant zone, overlay or particular provision. However a Local Planning Policy gives a planning authority an opportunity to state how discretion should or will be exercised under the planning scheme.

Recommendation: o When drafting a new Local Planning Policy Council should have regard to DPCD

Practice Note ‘Writing a Local Planning Policy’ (September 2010)

8.2 Existing Local Policies

There are seventeen local planning policies at Clause 22 of the current Hume Planning Scheme being:

• Clause 22.01 – Industrial Policy

• Clause 22.02 – Rural Land Character and Urban Design Local Policy

• Clause 22.03 – Pipeworks Fun Market Local Policy

• Clause 22.04 – Townships Local Policy

• Clause 22.05 – Broadmeadows Transit City Local Policy

• Clause 22.06 – Sunbury Town Centre Local Policy

• Clause 22.07 – Aged Accommodation and Services Local Policy

• Clause 22.08 – Animal Boarding and Dog Breeding Local Policy

• Clause 22.09 – Advertising Signs Local Policy

• Clause 22.10 – Macedon Street Office Area Local Policy

• Clause 22.11 – Neighbourhood Shopping Centres Local Policy

• Clause 22.12 – Roxburgh Park Activity Centre – South of Somerton Road

• Clause 22.13 – Residential Neighbourhood Character – Sunbury Local Policy

• Clause 22.14 – Residential Neighbourhood Character – Tullamarine Local Policy

• Clause 22.15 – Residential Neighbourhood Character – Westmeadows Local Policy

• Clause 22.16 – Horne Street and Gap Road, Sunbury

• Clause 22.17 – Gaming

39

The following is a brief commentary on each of the clauses of the LPP’s. Clause 22.01 – Industrial Policy Most recently Clause 22.01 was reviewed as part of the implementing Local Policy Stronger review and implemented into the Hume Planning Scheme through planning scheme amendment C103. Previous Comments: This clause has previously been reviewed by through the LPP pilot program by an expert review panel. Their commentary on this clause stated;

“The Policy is used on a regular basis by planning staff to guide development in industrial areas. Providing employment in outer areas of Melbourne is important to reduce social disadvantage and excessive commuting. Encouraging a high quality of design in industrial areas and a coherent sense-of-place will help these areas attract jobs, provided the requirements do not add unwarranted costs to development. Some elements of the policy are quite detailed and while the guidance might restrict individual choices in material or site layout the restrictions are not onerous and are aimed generally at achieving a sense of cohesion across the industrial area. The policy assists in the delivery of consistent planning decisions in Hume. There is always a tension in planning between certainty and flexibility. A number of elements in the policy lean towards providing certainty at the expense of flexibility. We (Panel) think that in the context of the planning issues confronting Hume a generally fair balance has been struck and the policies assist in delivering a planning services, and note that these provisions are already part of the scheme and are used regularly by the Hume planners in decision making. The policy has been redrafted under the various issues that require guidance. Tables have been used to set out the different requirements for different areas where needed. Hume has informally adopted a range of parking requirements that it applies to new industrial development. These rates are lower than the rates set out in Clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme (The standard Clause for Car parking requirements). There is good reason to include these rates in the revised policy. Inclusion of these rates reduces the burden on applicants in justifying a reduction in parking based on the local conditions identified by Hume. These revised rates have the practical effect of reducing an excessive requirement. The revised rates are based on an assessment of the real parking requirements for developments in Hume. The restructure and improvement in the language of the policy are a plain English translation of the existing policies that will not materially effect any owners or occupiers of land”

40

Audit Comments This policy applies to use, development and subdivision in industrial areas and is based on the ‘Industrial Development Strategy April 1995’. Some of the policy intent could be better reflected by as Design and Development Overlay, or schedule to the Industrial zone, with the rest of the clause being reflected in the MSS. There may be the requirement to detail a separate industrial policy with more directed and specific intent; however this should be further reviewed. The Panel members who reviewed the clause made some interesting observations in particular where they discuss the fact that the current policy is structured by area, with policy guidance for each area addressing a number of elements. This approach leads to:

o repetition, where similar guidance is provided for different areas, and o uncertainty, where it is not clear that some guidance applies to all areas, though

there is no clear reason why it would not be relevant, and a broader reading of the policy framework in the Hume Planning Scheme indicates that the guidance should apply.

When reviewing and rewriting this clause officer’s should have regard to the recommendations of the Expert Panel the full report is attached at Appendix E.

Given the concerns raised during the consultation phase of this project it seems necessary to review the effectiveness of this clause. A few comments indicated that the rewrite as part of the Expert Panel’s recommendations actually confused the policy and introduced more uncertainty. Once this review has been undertaken it will be appropriate to understand what aspects of this policy can be merged into the MSS and included into specific zones or overlays.

Recommendation: o Complete review of Clause 22.01 and a full rewrite is necessary.

Clause 22.02 – Rural Land Character and Urban Design Local Policy Audit Comments:

This policy seeks to prevent development which is incompatible with the landscape or which is highly visible has the potential to diminish the visual qualities of these features and the rural character of the City. Whilst this policy gives some discretion for the protection of ridgelines and hilltops through encouraging appropriate design response, it would be possible to still protect this through incorporating the broad objectives into the MSS, and where specific through possible overlay provisions. This policy needs to be reviewed and better outcome sought to ensure the objectives of the preceding policies actually are achieved

Recommendation: o Review effectiveness of Clause 22.02 .

41

o Where appropriate aspects of this policy (22.02) can be merged into the MSS and included into specific overlays

Clause 22.03 – Pipeworks Fun Market Local Policy Audit Comments:

This is a policy relating to the preferred location and encouraging the continued use of Pipeworks Fun Market, however the local policy adds little with regards to specific controls and discretion for decision making (other than general support).

The 2010 Retail Strategy discusses the possibility to include this site and similar sites into a Regional Bulky Goods node. Given this site is currently transforming and there are new principals for planning around this site it seems an appropriate time to completely review this clause.

Recommendation: o Review effectiveness of Clause 22.03 o Where appropriate aspects of this policy (22.03) can be merged into the MSS and

included into specific overlays

Clause 22.04 – Townships Local Policy

Audit Comments:

This is the ‘strategy plan’ for Bulla, Kalkallo (inclusive of maps) which should be included in the MSS under the heading of or ‘Housing’ or Local Areas. It also contains subdivision and development principles which could be reflected in a Development Plan Overlay schedule. The Council vision for the Kalkallo area should be reviewed due to the recent changes to the Urban Growth Boundary.

Recommendation: o Review Clause 22.04 and Council’s vision for the Bulla and Kalkallo localities. o Where appropriate aspects of this policy (22.04) can be merged into the MSS and

included into specific overlays

Clause 22.05 – Broadmeadows Transit City Local Policy Audit Comments:

As part of the Melbourne 2030 strategy released in 2002 Broadmeadows was designated a Transit City. The policy that is currently contained in the LPP at 22.05 was a policy that outlined the long term strategic direction for part of the CBD based on policy formulated in a 2005 Transit City Masterplan. In 2008 as part of the Melbourne@5million update to State Government Policy, Broadmeadows received a higher status designation and was renamed a Central Activity District which was one of 6 across Melbourne. This designation significantly elevated Broadmeadows status and will change the role that it plays in Melbourne’s north. Currently Hume City Council and DPCD are in the process of undertaking a central activity district structure plan which will supersede the Transit City Masterplan. When this document is finalised and implemented into the Hume Planning Scheme clause 22.05 will need to be revised or

42

superseded with outcomes of the Structure Plan reflected in the MSS, zones and overlays and not in a local policy.

Recommendation: o Clause 22.05 can be deleted (at completion of the structure plan implementation) o Outcomes of any the structure plan should be included in the MSS, zones and

overlays

Clause 22.06 – Sunbury Town Centre Local Policy Audit Comments:

This is also a ‘strategy plan’ (this time for Sunbury Town Centre inclusive of maps) which should be included in the MSS under the heading of ‘Activity Centre’ (or ‘Sunbury’). A number of the principles within the LPP repeat or further the existing statements in the MSS, it would be possible to strengthen the MSS with these statements. A number of the statements are extremely interventionist and should be reviewed in line with the more recent Sunbury Town Centre Plan. Furthermore the policy references have been superseded and should be revised accordingly.

Recommendation: o Clause 22.06 can be deleted once new controls have been written and implemented

in accordance with the Sunbury Town Centre Plan. can be deleted (at completion of the structure plan implementation)

Clause 22.07 – Aged Accommodation and Services Local Policy Most recently Clause 22.07 was reviewed as part of the implementing Local Policy Stronger review and implemented into the Hume Planning Scheme through planning scheme amendment C103. Previous Comments: This clause has previously been reviewed by through the LPP pilot program by an expert review panel. Their commentary on this clause stated;

“This policy can be improved with minor changes to language. These changes do not warrant notice and should be fast tracked.

Hume has under taken strategic planning work looking at aging issues and this work is reported in its report Healthy Aging in Hume (2007). We have reviewed this report and identified a number of strategies that could be included in the planning scheme to implement the strategic directions identified in the report,.

These are:

� Support the provision of affordable housing for older persons

� Support additional aged care management services to establish services.

� Support day therapy centres and allied health services for the aged.

43

� Support residential aged care that includes places for financially and socially disadvantaged residents, and with the capacity for respite and short stay options.

� Ensure social infrastructure meets the needs of older community members.

� Support the establishment of a Cognitive, Dementia and Memory service.

� Support the establishment of community facilities targeted at an ageing population.

These strategies would be best included in a revised MSS – they are too broad for inclusion in a local policy.”

Audit Comments:

This is also a local policy which provides a greater level of precision than does the existing zoning provisions. It is evidently very well used. It could however be better formulated to further strengthen and address objectives and its supporting policies.

Recommendation: o Review effectiveness of Clause 22.07 and where appropriate aspects of this policy

can be merged and included in the MSS, however, aspects of this LPP may need to be retained in a local policy form.

o Review 22.07 in line with the recommendations of the Expert Review Panel (Appendix E).

Clause 22.08 – Animal Boarding and Dog Breeding Local Policy

Audit Comments:

This is also a local policy which provides a greater level of precision than does the existing zoning provisions. It should however be better formulated to further strengthen and address objectives and its supporting policies. Interestingly during the online survey 61.9% of respondents (who answered the question) stated that the Animal Boarding and Dog Breeding LPP (Clause 22.08) should be deleted or is a redundant clause.

Recommendation: o Review Clause 22.08 to ensure that it is effective in the day-to-day decision making

of planning permit applications.

Clause 22.09 – Advertising Signs Local Policy Most recently Clause 22.07 was reviewed by an Expert Review Panel as part of the implementing Local Policy Stronger review and implemented into the Hume Planning Scheme through planning scheme amendment C103. Previous Comments by Expert Panel: This clause has previously been reviewed by through the LPP pilot program by an expert review panel. Their commentary on this clause stated;

44

“The language and structure of the existing policy has been clarified.

New content has been added based on informal policies that currently operate that deals with sign size for commercial and industrial development and signs that promote new subdivisions. SIGN SIZE

Informal guidance used by Hume sets limits on commercial and industrial signage. These limits relate sign size to building frontage.

From a ‘streamlining’ point of view it is appropriate that this guidance be included in the planning scheme. We don’t think it is practical to reach a conclusion that such guidance is not necessary when it is being used on a regular basis. The guidance does not contradict the broader requirements of the VPP.

We think that the guidance should be included in the policy, but that an opportunity should be given for submissions around the precise detail of the policy.

The size limits also cover industrial premises. Ultimately this guidance would be best included in Clause 22.01. PROMOTION SIGNS FOR NEW SUBDIVISIONS

The existing policy has guidance for promotion signs for new subdivisions where the sign is not located on the land being subdivided. Hume has an informal policy that also covers such signs when located on the land being subdivided.

We think that guidance on these signs should be included in the scheme as it provides a clear set of ‘ground rules’ and provides for consistency in decision making. There is potentially a wide range of responses to signs that promote new subdivisions. On the one hand the essentially temporary nature of the signs might lead to an unrestricted approach. On the other the potential of the signs to impact on the (still) rural areas or on the entrances to new estates might lead to a restrictive approach. In the absence of some guidance planning decisions will potentially vary between decision makers.”

Audit Comments:

This is a local policy which provides a greater level of precision than does the existing zoning provisions. It is evidently very well used. It should however be better formulated to further strengthen and address objectives and its supporting policies.

Not all the changes recommended by the Expert Review Panel were able to be incorporated and rewritten as part of C103 – any further changes should be incorporated by a further rewrite of the LPPF.

45

Recommendation: o Review Clause 22.09 in line with the recommendations of the Expert Review Panel

(Appendix E).

Clause 22.10 – Macedon Street Office Area Local Policy

Audit Comments:

The key purpose of this policy is to ensure that Macedon Street continues to be developed as a major gateway to Sunbury and destination for office and institutional-based activities and that new developments reflect as far as possible the local character and heritage of the area. The policy basis for a number of the statements is now redundant and should be reviewed in line with the more recent Sunbury Town Centre Plan. Furthermore the policy references have been superseded and should be revised where appropriate.

Recommendation: o Clause 22.10 should be reviewed having regard to the Sunbury Town Centre Plan.

This is likely to result in new controls needing to be written and achieved through the MSS, zones and overlays

Clause 22.11 – Neighbourhood Shopping Centres Local Policy Audit Comments: The intent of this clause is that the development of well-designed neighbourhood shopping centres as a local focus for retail, commercial and community activity is identified as an important strategy in the Municipal Strategic Statement. Throughout this review it has become increasingly clear that the municipal wide designation of Activity Centres should be reviewed. This clause will need to be reviewed through this process. The completion of the Retail Review (2010) also will have an impact on the policy basis that underpins this clause. This clause should be reviewed with as a culmination of the completion of these other strategies/review.

Recommendation: o Clause 22.11 should be reviewed through the undertaking of a new Activity Centre

Strategy as well as having regard to the Retail Review (2010). This clause could easily be written into the MSS with only specific elements being made into a LPP (if required).

Clause 22.12 – Roxburgh Park Activity Centre – South of Somerton Road Audit Comments:

46

This clause sets out a number of policy objectives regarding signage, amenity, building design and landscaping. This policy applies to land zoned Business 4 at the south-east corner of Somerton Road and Pascoe Vale Road, Coolaroo, which is a relatively small area of land that development potential has now been largely realised. It is timely to review this clause having regard to the way development is occurring on site.

Recommendation: o Clause 22.12 should be reviewed to make sure that the intended outcomes are

occurring ‘on the ground’. This clause could easily be deleted with some relevant policy aspects being input into the MSS and specific overlay controls.

Clause 22.13 – Residential Neighbourhood Character – Sunbury Local Policy Audit Comments: This is a local policy arising from Amendment C45 Dealing with a specific area and provides a greater level of precision than does the zone or overlay. The clause was written at the same time as the 22.15 which was the subject of a Planning Panel whose recommendations by the were concerned with improving the MSS references, reviewing whether an appropriate VPP overlay should be applied to the area affected by the proposed local planning policy, and improving the content and effectiveness of that policy. This clause should be checked to make sure that the intended outcomes are occurring ‘on the ground’.

Recommendation: o Clause 22.13 should be reviewed to make sure that the intended outcomes are

occurring ‘on the ground’. o Clause 22.13 could easily be written into the MSS with only specific elements being

made into a LPP (if required).

Clause 22.14 – Residential Neighbourhood Character – Tullamarine Local Policy Audit Comments: This is a local policy arising from Amendment C45 Dealing with a specific area and provides a greater level of precision than does the zone or overlay. It is evidently well used. The clause was written at the same time as the 22.15 which was the subject of a Planning Panel whose recommendations were concerned with improving the MSS references, reviewing whether an appropriate VPP overlay should be applied to the area affected by the proposed local planning policy, and improving the content and effectiveness of that policy. This clause should be checked to make sure that the intended outcomes are occurring ‘on the ground’

Recommendation:

47

o Clause 22.14 should be reviewed to make sure that the intended outcomes are occurring ‘on the ground’.

o Clause 22.14 could easily be written into the MSS with only specific elements being made into a LPP (if required).

Clause 22.15 – Residential Neighbourhood Character – Westmeadows Local Policy Audit Comments: This is a local policy arising from Amendment C45. Dealing with a specific area and provides a greater level of precision than does the zone or overlay. It is evidently well used. The Planning Panel’s recommendations were concerned with improving the MSS references, reviewing whether an appropriate VPP overlay should be applied to the area affected by the proposed local planning policy, and improving the content and effectiveness of that policy. This clause should be checked to make sure that the intended outcomes are occurring ‘on the ground’

Recommendation: o Clause 22.15 should be reviewed to make sure that the intended outcomes are

occurring ‘on the ground’. o Clause 22.15 could easily be written into the MSS with only specific elements being

made into a LPP (if required).

Clause 22.16 – Horne Street and Gap Road, Sunbury Audit Comments: This is a local policy arising from Amendment C79 dealing with a specific area and provides a greater level of precision than does the zones or overlay. It is evidently well used. This clause responds to a particular development outcome whilst recognising the need to protect the amenity of the neighbouring residential areas. This clause has had a varying degree of success, and should be reviewed regarding its actual effectiveness to review the best way to achieve the intent of the policy.

Recommendation: o Clause 22.16 should also be reviewed as part of the implementation of the Sunbury

Town Centre Structure Plan o Clause 22.15 could easily be written into the MSS with only specific elements being

made into a LPP (if required).

Clause 22.17 – Gaming Audit Comments:

This is a new local policy arising from Amendment C100 dealing with a specific application and areas. The policy provides a greater level of precision than any available the zone or overlay. It is evidently very well used.

48

Recommendation: o Clause 22.17 could be incorporated in the MSS in the ‘Particular Use and

Development’ section.

8.3 New Policies for MSS or LPP Discussion has also taken place with staff and others about candidate themes for new ‘local policies’. The recurrent issues which have emerged and should be considered by Council in their rewrite phase for the inclusion in the scheme are:

• Non Residential Uses in Residential Zone Policy

• A specific policy based around the theme of ‘Sustainable Development’ which are suggested in accordance with the Pathways to Sustainability which:

− Specifies the types of development or zones the policies apply to, which would allow for a range of residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural developments/activities to be included.

− Includes policy statements which require compliance with sustainability goals and targets.

− Addresses issues relating to areas covered by the heritage overlay, with specific guidelines relating to visibility, positioning of micro-renewable energy generators or solar hot water systems, suitable materials/colours etc.

− Encourages the uptake of micro renewable energy generators, and in areas with potentially conflicting values to emphasise the future potential removability of these items.

− Requires developers to demonstrate compliance with the Pathways to Sustainability Policy or a sustainable development checklist.

Recommendation: o Any new planning policy that is drafted in the future needs to be fundamentally

reflected (where appropriate) in the restructured MSS (at Clause 21) rather than in a new local policy (at Clause 22) this is consistent with the State Governments recommended approach.

8.4 Conclusions Regarding the Local Policies

Based on an analysis of the existing local policies, it is evident that they fall into one of four categories.

• Some are clearly local policy and should be retained (albeit edited) or absorbed into the MSS

• Some deal (in part) with strategy and should be included in the MSS

• Some could be reflected in an overlay

• Some should be reflected in a zone

• The rest are no longer needed if they are dealt with by the zone and overlay

49

As an overall comment in relation to Clause 22, it is apparent that many of the existing policies (indeed most of the local policies) in the scheme may be able to be deleted in the review phase and can be redistributed back into the MSS. Once again, any re-write or restructure of Clause 22 would need to be mindful of the recommendations of ‘Making Local Policy Stronger’. There are a range of structural elements in the Hume Planning Scheme that could be addressed, including:

o The number of local planning policies in the LPPF. o The MSS and schedules to the zones and overlays should be used more

effectively to minimise the need for so many local planning policies. Completion of the various State Government initiatives as well as Council’s completed studies provides a stronger strategic foundation to build on and improve the Hume MSS and LPPF.

50

9.0 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ZONES AND SCHEDULES

9.1 Audit of Zones and Schedules There are a total of 22 zones in the Hume Planning Scheme as follows:

• Residential 1

• Low Density Residential

• Mixed Use

• Township

• Industrial 1

• Industrial 3

• Business 1

• Business 2

• Business 3

• Business 4

• Business 5

• Rural Living

• Green Wedge

• Green Wedge A

• Farming

• Public Use

• Public Park and Recreation

• Public Conservation and Resource

• Road

• Special Use

• Comprehensive Development

• Urban Floodway

• Urban Growth Zone General Comments Feedback from officers, community representatives, agencies and stakeholders has revealed that while the zone selection remains generally appropriate, the zone schedules typically need review. In addition, there may be a need to select some new zones to implement further strategic work commissioned by Council. This will be increasingly evident if the three new residential zones proposed by the Department of Planning and Environment are introduced. Specific issues to emerge from consultation regarding the zones and alternative zone options include: Residential Suite

• The only residential zone which has been applied in the urban areas is the Residential 1 Zone.

• There is no use of the Residential 2 Zone and consequently, there is no direction given via the zone or the MSS as to preferred sites for medium density housing.

51

• The Low Density Residential zone has been translated from former schemes and has been applied as a buffer zone to some rural zones, such as the Farming Zone and the Green Wedge Zone. It is also used around Mickleham Road and Barrymore Road where it was previously a buffer between residential zones and the Green Wedge Zone.

• The Township zone has been applied to towns such as Bulla and Kalkallo

• The Mixed Use zone has been used in small pockets throughout the municipality. Where it has been applied it has been used to increase land use mix.

Industrial Suite

• The Industrial 1 and 3 zones have been applied, with most land covered by the Industrial 1 zone.

• These zones have largely been applied to the older and more established areas of Industrial Hume.

• Some of these areas are now changing as the result of changing economy

• The adequacy of industrial zones to deal with the current economic changes of land use objectives is required.

Business Suite

• The Business 1 Zone is used around the Broadmeadows Central Activity District and Sunbury Town Centre.

• The Business 2 Zone has been used in a number of pockets including a small section along Macedon Street in Sunbury.

• The Business 3 Zone has been used in large pockets such as around in the Folkestone within the Mickleham North Employment Precinct. It is also used in the Camp Road precinct located in Broadmeadows. This area is a historical industrial area located close to the train station and separates two residential areas – Broadmeadows and Dallas.

• There is some Business 4 located along Station Street and Horne Street in Sunbury which caters for some bulky goods developments in this area.

• There is a need to undertake further business rezonings in a number of areas, which has been highlighted by a number of Council’s strategies including, Sunbury Town Centre Structure Plan (2008). There are is also some discussion in the Hume City Council Retail Strategy (endorsed 2010) which suggests that there may be a lack of business supplied land into the future, particularly within respect to additional growth areas.

Rural Suite

• The Green Wedge Zone has been introduced by the State Government as part of Melbourne 2030 is predominantly the zone that has been utilised in the Hume Planning Scheme. The purpose of this zone is to recognise and protect non urban land outside the Urban Growth Boundary in the Melbourne metropolitan area for its agricultural, environmental, historic, landscape or recreational values, or mineral and stone resources.

• The current suite of zones were a result of a direct translation from the previous Rural Zones.

52

• The schedules and current subdivision controls are also as a result of direct translation of old zones and therefore have not been reviewed as to their adequacy.

• Farming Zone has been applied to land inside the UGB and is proposed to currently act as a holding zone until an appropriate zoning response has been established.

• The Rural Living Zone has been applied to land around Sunbury and parts Greenvale within the UGB; this was the result of translation. At some stage it is important that Council review the appropriateness of the rural living zone placement, however there is currently no emerging issue to do so in the short term.

Public Use Suite

• The Public Use Zone has been extensively used.

• The Department of Sustainability and Environment have indicated that they would be willing to work with Council to rectify any issues and anomalies in the current planning scheme – particularly involving the PUZ.

Comprehensive Development Suite

• The Comprehensive Development Zone has been used frequently in Hume City Council – more so than most other Victorian Planning Schemes. It has been used on large sites to guide the integrated developments of subdivisions where there have not been other VPP tools to achieve the intended outcomes of Council

• Due to this use of the sites there are redundant CDZ remaining over completed developments that need to be rezoned to an appropriate zone reflecting its use, primarily Residential 1 Zone or Business Zone. This review needs to ensure atht the objectives of underlying Local Structure Plans are still relevant.

Urban Growth Suite

• The UGZ will be applied to land in a Farming Zone within the Urban Growth Boundary in Hume’s designated growth areas.

• The application of the UGZ does not, by itself, allow urban use and development to proceed. A precinct structure plan must be prepared and applied to the land before this can occur.

• Council is currently involved with GAA on a number of precinct structure planning processes which will result in an appropriate management of growth and applied zones.

Special Use Suite

• There are six schedules to the Special Use zone and there appears to be scope to rationalize some of these. Greater exemptions are needed in all the SUZ schedules for buildings and works.

9.2 Conclusions regarding the Zones and Schedules Most of the zones schedules in the Hume Planning Scheme require some level of review and further work including possible deletion and map changes. Changes to these zones need to be based in future work being undertaken, such as;

53

o Industrial Land Use Strategy (Revision) o Identify and zone appropriate areas for higher density development, particularly in

close proximity to activity centres and public transport through an appropriate Housing Strategy

o Activity Centre Strategy o Implement Retail Strategy review to inform the Business zone selection. o Completion of the Green Wedge Management Plan Phase 2. o Greater exemptions from buildings and works controls especially in the Special Use

zones o Need to undertake rezoning of existing completed developments that are currently

covered by the CDZ to more appropriate zones o Review of DSE owned PUZ land to resolve anomalies.

Recommendation: o Look at revising the zone layout once further work is completed.

54

10.0 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE OVERLAYS AND SCHEDULES

10.1 Audit of Overlays and Schedules

There are a total of 12 overlays in the Hume Planning Scheme as follows:

• Environmental Significance

• Vegetation Protection

• Heritage

• Design and Development

• Development Plan (22)

• Floodway overlay

• Special Building Overlay

• Public Acquisition

• Environmental Audit

• Road Closure

• Restructure Overlay

• Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay All of these overlays (other than the Road Closure and Environmental Audit) have at least one attached schedule which also vary in complexity. A brief overview of the overlays and schedules arising from the consultations include: Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO) This overlay has eight schedules being:

• Schedule 1 Rural Waterways and Environs

• Schedule 2 Merri Creek and Moonee Ponds Creek and Environs

• Schedule 3 Evans Street Grassland

• Schedule 4 Northern Railway Reservation

• Schedule 5 Mount Ridley Grasslands and Woodland

• Schedule 6 Cooper Street Grassland

• Schedule 7 Western Plains Grassland and Grey Box Grassy Woodland

• Schedule 8 Amaroo Conservation Reserve Environmental significance is intended to be interpreted widely and may include issues such as effects from noise or industrial buffer areas, as well as issues related to the natural environment. These issues and the intended effects or outcomes of the requirements being imposed must be clearly stated. During the consultation/engagement aspect of this project there were perceptions by a number of stakeholders that it is timely to review Council’s ESO provisions. This is also an action that is recommended in Council’s adopted Natural Heritage Strategy. This may result in new and revised mapping being required and implemented into the planning scheme.

55

Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO) This overlay has three schedules being:

• Schedule 1 Grassy Woodlands in Vicinity of Spavin Drive, Sunbury

• Schedule 2 Burke Hill Shrubland

• Schedule 3 Kalkallo Grasslands

• Schedule 4 Greenvale Rise – River Redgums This overlay can apply to any form of vegetation native or otherwise. The significance of identifying the vegetation must be stated, together with the intended outcomes of imposed requirements. Generally, some description of the vegetation would be expected in a reference document. Native vegetation precinct plans (introduced in 2008) are being used in conjunction with Hume’s growth areas planning where precinct structure plans are being developed that will set out the overall form, direction and sequence of urban development. A native vegetation precinct plan should form part of the overall structure planning process so that decisions relating to native vegetation can inform the planning of other aspects of the precinct. This plan will generally understand the ongoing requirements of the vegetation protection for the locality into the future and may require a VPO where considered appropriate. During the consultation/engagement aspect of this project there were perceptions by a number of stakeholders that it is timely to review Council’s VPO provisions. This is also an action that is recommended in Council’s adopted Natural Heritage Strategy. This may result in new and revised mapping being required and implemented into the planning scheme.

Heritage Overlay (HO) Any heritage place with a recognised citation should be included in the schedule to this overlay. In addition, any heritage place identified in local heritage studies can also be included. A heritage place can have a wide definition and may include a single object or an area. There should be a rigorous heritage assessment process leading to the identification of the place. The documentation for each place should include a Statement of Significance which establishes the importance of the place.

Hume’s Heritage Overlay has one schedule which lists a number of heritage places which vary from buildings, to structures, to trees to precincts. The schedule was revised by Amendment C55 (Gazetted in 2006) which reviewed and amended the scheme to have additional Heritage properties. Design and Development Overlay (DDO) This overlay has four schedules as follows:

56

• Schedule 1 Hume Freeway – Metropolitan Ring Road to the North of Craigieburn

• Schedule 2 Horne Street and Gap Road, Sunbury

• Schedule 3 Horne Street, Sunbury (North of Gap Road)

• Schedule 4 Westmeadows Neighbourhood Activity Centre This overlay is principally intended to implement requirements based on a demonstrated need to control built form and the built environment. The intended built form outcome must be clearly stated, as must the way in which the imposed requirements will bring this about. At this stage there are not any new DDOs that have been identified as necessary or specific gaps in policy however, this may change once a full LPPF rewrite and review has been undertaken. Development Plan Overlay (DPO) This overlay has twenty one schedules as follows (numbered 1-22 missing 20):

• Schedule 1 Spavin Drive and Environs

• Schedule 2 Riddell Road Development Plan

• Schedule 3 Horne Street Development Plan

• Schedule 4 Evans Street Development Plan

• Schedule 5 Campbellfield Shopping Centre Development Plan

• Schedule 6 Mt. Holden Development Plan

• Schedule 7 Urban Development Area: Residential Area

• Schedule 8 Rural Residential Area

• Schedule 9 Mitchells Lane East

• Schedule 10 Western Avenue Development Plan

• Schedule 11 (Eastern Portion of Land known as Greenvale Rise)

• Schedule 12 Merri Growth Corridor: Adams Local Structure Plan – South West Corner

• Schedule 13 Reservoir Road Development Plan (Vol 4356, Folio 123)

• Schedule 14 Cooper Street, Campbellfield

• Schedule 15 1040-1090 Mickleham Road Greenvale

• Schedule 16 700 Hume Highway, Craigieburn

• Schedule 17 Employment Precinct, 135 – 265 Donnybrook Road Mickleham

• Schedule 18 Roxburgh Park Shopping Centre

• Schedule 19 Catholic Education School Site, Greenvale

• Schedule 21 810 Cooper Street, Somerton

• Schedule 22 Greenvale Lakes East The intent of this overlay is used where the form of development is appropriately controlled by a plan which satisfies the planning authority and a planning scheme amendment is not considered necessary to amend the plan. Though the consultation and engagement period undertaken it has been noted that there are concerns that there are a number of DPO’s that have been completed therefore the schedule appearing in the scheme is now redundant. Development Plan Overlay Schedule 7 is in particular an unusual tool which has been used as a general residential development overlay. The reason for the usual application

57

of the DPO was the result of the transition to the New Format Planning Scheme. Originally Council proposed to use ‘circles’ of Business 1 Zones to indicate the approximate locations of neighbourhood centres resulting from Local Structure Plans (LSP) for broad acre developments. The Panel and Advisory Committee that oversaw this process criticised this approach and suggested that Council come up with another way to better implement LSP’s under the new suite of VPPs. As a result of this DPO7 was drafted and implemented over areas that were rezoned as CDZ to implement the LSP outcomes. This approach has occurred in a number of locations, i.e. Roxburgh Park, and Craigieburn Town Centre. This DPO schedule needs in particular needs to be reviewed to ensure it is the right VPP tool for this process – which may be included in a broader review of DPO’s. Floodway Overlay (FO) This overlay should be applied to urban and rural land identified as part of the active floodway, or to a high hazard area with high flow velocities, where impediment of flood water can cause significant changes in flood flows and adversely affect other areas. The identification of these areas should be established in consultation with the relevant floodplain management authority. This overlay has only been used in Kalkallo along the Donnybrook/Hume Freeway interchange. This overlay is not often used in the current planning framework and therefore it is unlikely that any new FO’s are required at this stage.

Special Building Overlay (SBO) This overlay applies to urban land which is subject to stormwater flooding or overland flow, but is not part of the primary floodway. In Hume SBO’s have been applied to urban areas which are subject to flooding by overland flows from the drainage system in 1 in 100 year storm events. This is as determined by Melbourne Water’s modeling. The overlay will require that a permit is sought for most buildings and works, and is applied primarily to ensure that any development covered by the SBO is built to a certain height etc so to minimise flood damage. It is also so that Melbourne Water can monitor any cumulative impacts development could have in areas that store floodwaters in flood events. Currently there has not been an identified need for the use of the schedule to the overlay. Melbourne Water has recently requested Hume City Council to contribute a Planning Scheme Amendment to introduce the SBO and LSIO. Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO) This overlay identifies land that is proposed to be acquired for a public purpose. It has the effect of reserving the land under the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986. The authority acquiring the land and the purpose of the acquisition must be set out in the schedule. In the Hume Planning Scheme this overlay has one schedule with two acquisition authorities identified as follows:

• PAO1 Vic Roads

58

• PAO2 Hume City Council This schedule has evidently worked well and will be modified on an on-going basis to reflect the acquisition objectives of the authorities. Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) This overlay should be applied only to land identified, known or reasonably suspected of being contaminated and which has not satisfied one of the two requirements of the overlay. Refer to the Ministerial Direction No 1 Potentially Contaminated Land. This overlay has a specific purpose only and is not intended to generally identify all land known or suspected to be contaminated. Where land has been identified as being potentially contaminated Ministerial Direction No. 1 requires an audit to be completed to the requirements of the Direction before the site is developed. This overlay is not intended to have a schedule but it identifies places requiring environmental audit clearance prior to development for a ”sensitive use”. In the Hume Planning Scheme the EAO is used on a few identified potentially contaminated sites. Road Closure Overlay (RCO) This overlay is used to identify a road which is closed by an amendment to a planning Scheme. This overlay does not have a schedule, and is not intended to have a schedule. Restructure Overlay (RO) This overlay applies a restructure plan to old and inappropriate subdivisions as a condition of development approval. In the Hume Planning Scheme this overlay has one schedule with two restructure areas identified as follows:

• RO1 Relating to land identified in the Kalkallo Township Restructure Plan (Dec 2008)

• RO2 Relating to land identified in the Bulla Restructure Plan (12 Feb 2000) This schedule has evidently worked well and will be modified on an on-going basis as required, particularly in the instance that further infrastructure provision occurs within these localities. Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay (MAEO) The overlay is a ‘use’ control around the Melbourne Airport and it was introduced by VC Amendment 30 on the 14 May 2007. The overlay has two schedules (AEO1 and AEO2) which are state wide schedules that cannot be modified. Schedule 1 of the MAEO applies to areas where high levels of noise are forecast. As a result, some residential development and “sensitive” uses, such as a child care centre, are prohibited. Any subdivision which would increase the number of dwellings that the land could be used for is also prohibited. Schedule 2 of the MAEO does not prohibit any uses, but subdivision of land for residential purposes into lots with an average area of less than 300 square metres is prohibited.

59

10.2 Conclusions regarding the Overlays and Schedules Most of the overlays and their schedules in the Hume Planning Scheme require review and further work including possible deletion, exemptions, map changes and the like. In the context of the recent state initiatives to streamline the planning process and remove unnecessary permits, it appears that Council could minimise applications by including some realistic exemptions.

Recommendation: o Rationalising / aligning the Environmental Significance Overlays and the Vegetation

Protection Overlays where they overlap unnecessarily. o The ESO provisions and other ‘known’ issues of environmental significance should

be reviewed. o Undertake an audit of the current Development Plan Overlays to identify and delete

any redundant clauses

60

11.0 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS

11.1 Audit of Specific Provisions and Schedules

There are eight opportunities in Clause 52 of the Hume Planning Scheme for Council to specify local variations to the Particular Provisions as follows:

Clause Use of Schedule (n/y)

Revision

52.01

Public Open Space Contribution and Car Parking

N Y

52.02

Easements, Restrictions and Reserves

Y N

52.03

Specific Sites and Exclusions Y N

52.05

Advertising Signs N Y

52.06

Car Parking N Y

52.16 Native Vegetation Precinct Plan Y N

52.17

Native Vegetation Y Y

52.27

Licensed Premises N Y

52.28 Gaming

Y N

It is noted that Council has taken the opportunity to include local content in most of these schedules; however there still remains significant opportunity to use these schedules, including revision of existing information which is somewhat dated. In addition to these, the Schedule to Clause 61.03 identifies map references and this may need modification in the event that any consequential zoning and overlay changes are made. The Schedules to Clauses 66.04 and 66.06 include referral and notice requirements and these too may need modification and updating to reflect other recommendations arising from the review.

11.2 Audit of Incorporated Documents

There are twenty two local ‘Incorporated Documents’ listed in the Schedule to Clause 81.01 of the Hume Planning Scheme.

61

• Rail Infrastructure Projects (comprising the Rail Gauge Standardisation Project, the Regional Fast Rail Project and the Fibre Optic Project), December 2002

• Australian Standard AS2021-2000, Acoustics – Aircraft Noise Intrusion – Building Siting and Construction, Standards Australia International Ltd, 2000

• Bulla Restructure Plan dated 17 February 2000

• Kalkallo Restructure Plan dated December 2008

• Adams Corporation Land Holdings Comprehensive Development Plan dated May 2001

• Jacksons Hill Comprehensive Development Plan dated August 2001

• Roxburgh Park Comprehensive Development Plan dated August 2001

• Silverton Limited Land Holdings Comprehensive Development Plan dated May 2001

• Rolling Meadows Comprehensive Development Plan dated August 2001

• Craigieburn Rail Project Planning Controls dated 20 May 2004

• Drawing No. 551091 – Proposed works area for the Hume Freeway/Donnybrook Road Interchange

• Melbourne Airport – Future Runway Development Plan May 2007

• Merrifield Comprehensive Development Plan dated 3 December 2007

• Amaroo Conservation Reserve – 700 Hume Highway, Craigieburn December 2007

• Greenvale lakes East Comprehensive Development Plan, June 2007

• Folkestone Native Vegetation Precinct Plan

• Hume City Council Prohibited Gaming Areas, November 2007

• Drawing No. VR2 – Proposed works area for the Hume Freeway upgrade between Donnybrook Road and Gunns Gully Road

• Drawing No. VR3 – Hume Highway Upgrade, Kalkallo to Beveridge – Proposed roadworks and bridgeworks near Yaldwyn Street, Kalkallo

Council needs to audit this list of incorporated documents to ascertain whether they are all still relevant (and in fact whether they are all still available).

11.3 Conclusions regarding Specific Provisions and Incorporated Documents It is apparent from consultation that all schedules to the Specific Provisions and Incorporated Documents need to be reviewed to ascertain whether they are achieving their intended purpose, (especially Clause 52.01) or whether they are still relevant.

Recommendation: o Review the Specific Provisions o Review and audit Incorporated Documents.

62

Section C – Review Consultation

63

12.0 CONSULTATION

12.1 Purpose of consultation There is no prescribed formal consultation processes associated with the performance review of the MSS under the provisions of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. However given the relative age of the MSS and the strategic intent within it Council considers that consultation is an important part of the monitoring and review process. Reviewing existing documentation was not considered to be enough to measure the performance of the planning scheme and planning processes. The purpose of the consultation was to understand stakeholder’s expectations, how they perceive the planning scheme and processes and how they can be improved. The following overall consultation program was undertaken;

o newspaper advertisements o internet survey (internal as well as external)

In the preparation of this report, general and targeted consultation has taken place with the following stakeholders:

• Councillors & Executive Management Team

• Council Officers including; o Social Planners o Strategic Planners & Statutory Planners o Leisure and Youth Services o Aged Care & Health o Sustainable Environment o Economic Development o Transit Cities o Landscape o Finance (Valuations) o Parks o Infrastructure Planning & Engineers o Research o Family and Children’s Services

• Agencies

• Stakeholders

AECOM was engaged by Hume City Council to assist in the review of the Hume Planning Scheme by providing an objective opinion regarding the performance of the scheme in its current form. AECOM was also engaged to facilitate consultation with Council staff and review submissions received from the community, Council staff and key stakeholders. The purpose of the consultation was to identify issues relating to the performance of the Hume Planning Scheme. The consultation has informed the preparation by AECOM of recommendations aimed at improving the planning scheme

64

The further report produced by AECOM can be found at Appendix F. This document outlines the process, and the detailed recommendations that were identified through the consultation process.

12.2 Online Survey discussion An online survey was prepared by Hume City Council and was accessible from Council’s website from 23 March 2010 to 15 April 2010. The survey invited Council staff as well as the wider community to provide feedback on the Hume Planning Scheme.

Survey questions were designed to enable respondents to identify key trends and planning issues affecting the municipality and provide comments on the performance of the planning scheme.

Questions included in the survey addressed such topics as:

• how important is the planning scheme in decision making and policy setting

• how useful are various parts of the planning scheme (including all LPPs) and to what degree does the planning scheme require improvement

The survey questions and results are provided in Appendix F of this report.

An overview of the makeup of the survey respondents and the views they expressed in the online survey is provided below. A discussion of the specific issues identified, including recommendations on how to respond to these issues through the planning scheme, is provided in Section 3 of this Report.

The online survey was completed by 162 people. Of these people, 85.5% were Council employees. A high proportion of survey questions were skipped by respondents, with many questions being answered by less than forty people. Fifty percent (50%) of survey respondents have used the Hume Planning Scheme in the past, whilst 50% of survey respondents have never used it. 36.7% of the Council respondents identified the Hume Planning Scheme as important to them and 43.3% of respondents stated that it is of vital importance. 40% of Council respondents felt the Hume Planning Scheme is important to their decision making.

The majority of survey respondents considered all of the Hume Planning Scheme to be very useful or vital (Table 1). This question was answered by 38 people, of which 79% were Council employees.

Table 1 How useful are parts of the Hume Planning Scheme

MSS LPP Zones Overlays

Other

provisions

Of no use 5.6% 2.8% 8.3% 14.3% 14.3%

Somewhat

useful 38.9% 30.6% 8.3% 11.4% 28.6%

Very useful 38.9% 41.7% 44.4% 40.0% 40.0%

Vital 16.7% 25.0% 38.9% 34.3% 17.1%

65

Respondents particularly identified the need for significant improvement to the MSS (as identified by 45.5% of survey responses) as shown in Table 2. A significant proportion of respondents also identified the need for improvements to the LPPs, zones and overlays.

Table 2 Improvement required to components of the Hume Planning Scheme

Improvements required MSS LPP Zones Overlays

Significant improvements required

45.5% 35.5% 23.3% 17.2%

Some improvement required

36.4% 54.8% 56.7% 58.6%

No improvement required

18.2% 9.7% 20.0% 24.1%

66

13.0 RESULTS OF CONSULTATION 13.1 Key Issues

A diverse range of issues that should be addressed in the current review of the Hume Planning Scheme were identified during the consultation. These key issues are discussed in this section of the report. The issues are categorised into a number of themes.

13.1.1 Vision for the municipality

It was evident from the consultation that the vision for Hume needs to updated and clearly defined. In particular it was noted that there had been many significant changes to the factors influencing growth in Hume, ranging from market conditions to new State government planning policies and standards. These matters were consistently raised during the consultation processes. The need to revise the stated vision to ensure better alignment and consistency with the Council Plan, the Public Health & Wellbeing Plan and other key Council policies and strategies also emerged as a consistent theme. As part of the vision for the municipality it was frequently suggested that the Strategic Framework Plans in the MSS need to be updated to accurately reflect existing and future land uses (including the retail hierarchy). 13.1.2 Environmental Management, Sustainability and Climate Change

Issues relating to sustainability were highlighted throughout the consultation process. Matters raised included:

o Renewable energy

o Water tanks

o Sustainable and sensitive management of storm water (for example requiring Water Sensitive Urban Design)

o Recycled water use

o Waste and recycling management (including waste management practices on construction sites),

o Greenhouse gas emissions

o Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) and higher standards for sustainable housing and development.

It was identified that infrastructure should also be developed in a sustainable manner taking into consideration a longer design life.

There were also a number of climate change matters identified during the consultation. It was suggested that the MSS should recognise the importance of promoting land use and development that is resilient to climate change impacts (for example, encouraging

67

design solutions that minimise the urban heat island effect and manage the likelihood of increased storm events). The impacts of drought also need to be recognised.

A broad range of environmental matters were raised during the consultation. One of the key issues was the protection of native vegetation and waterways. This appeared to be due to the increased development pressures within the municipality and a perceived lack of direction in regard to Council’s objectives regarding native vegetation and waterways. Participants suggested a range of changes to the planning scheme, including a review of the Environmental Significance Overlays (ESO) and Vegetation Protection Overlays (VPO) across the municipality, changes to the schedules of the ESOs and the development of a local planning policy that reinforces the protection of native vegetation.

Respondents also identified the need to protect fauna and fauna habitats as well as native vegetation. It was suggested that the MSS (i.e. Clause 21.05) should recognise the significant flora and fauna in Hume and have references to the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1998 and the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Another environmental issue that was identified by a number of respondents are the somewhat interrelated issues of storm water management, earthworks and waterway pollution. Respondents felt that these matters need to be more effectively addressed in the planning scheme.

There were a range of environment related documents suggested throughout the consultation process that should be reviewed or introduced into the Hume Planning Scheme as reference documents including Development Guidelines for the Merri Creek

The comments relating to these issues predominantly related to the LPPF. Respondents identified the need to provide a better frame of reference in the relevant local sections of the planning scheme, from high level policy to matters of detail, regarding Council’s expectation of the role that new development plays in delivering more sustainable development outcomes. Respondents identified that an overarching policy on these issues would inform, influence and most likely support policies on land use, transportation and such, as well as providing specific direction for particular policy issues such as biodiversity and sustainable design.

13.1.3 Managing Growth

A significant number of respondents expressed the view that greater guidance needs to be provided for greenfield and infill growth areas across the residential, retail, commercial, industrial and agricultural sectors. These matters all need to be considered in context of current State Government policy such as Melbourne @ 5 million which provides policy initiatives that are complementary to the directions of Melbourne 2030.

Respondents identified that recent information and policy initiatives undertaken by Council should be incorporated into the scheme as part of this scheme review (such as the draft Hume Retail Strategy), however in other policy areas additional research is needed for Council to be able to provide a sound basis for a policy position.

Specifically it was suggested that:

• There is a need to better understand future housing needs and trends, and to provide the basis for Council to introduce policy statements into the planning

68

scheme on matters ranging from the extent and type of new residential development in Council’s existing established urban areas to policies on affordable housing.

• Clarification is required regarding future directions for industrial and agricultural land uses.

A number of respondents identified the need to update plans such as the Hume Strategic Framework Plans in Clause 21.01 to reflect the current urban growth boundary and identified future growth areas.

The infrastructure needs of the municipality, including timing, responsibility and funding sources were also raised during the consultation. It was also suggested that Hume needs a transport strategy that links employment nodes, residential areas and provides for regional linkages.

An interesting issue raised in consultation was the need for the planning scheme to better recognise the municipality as a part of a larger region within the State by containing policy statements specific to the region in which the municipality is located. It was suggested that there could be a regional planning layer that sits between the SPPF and the LPPF. Such an approach needs further development before discussion with DPCD and neighbouring Councils.

A further issue identified was whether a similar approach should be taken within the LPPF. That is, can or should the MSS contain policy statements that guide land use within distinct sub-regions / precincts. Respondents recognised however that this approach requires further development before progressing further.

Consideration also needs to be given to providing guidance on the location of a number of specific land uses, including Places of Worship/Assembly, Licensed Premises and non-residential uses in residential zones.

13.1.4 Activity Centres From the consultation it is evident that activity centres need to be managed more strategically. Planning for these activity centres needs to incorporate key directions from Council’s economic and retail strategies. There is a need to identify the hierarchy of activity centres within Hume and the various roles of centres. Structure planning was required in the higher order activity centres to help define these roles.

Development guidelines also need to be included in the LPPF, particularly for lower order activity centres in order to provide better direction for the nature and form of development within these areas, in particular, urban design.

13.1.5 Economic Respondents identified the need for the drivers of Hume’s economy to be clearly reinforced and supported in the MSS. These drivers include retail, industry, agriculture and housing, but also specific uses such as Melbourne Airport, which is Hume’s largest employer.

It was suggested that there is potential for Melbourne Airport to attract significantly more aeronautical and aviation related businesses, as well as an aviation training academy

69

which is currently being investigated by the Victorian Government (Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development). It was evident from the consultation that the planning scheme needs to carefully consider the needs of Melbourne Airport.

Council’s Economic Development Department is also keen to see more tourism related activities across the municipality and more accommodation to support tourism regionally.

It was also suggested that the proposed Donnybrook Intermodal Freight Terminal (as identified in the State Government’s Freight Futures) should be recognised in the Hume Planning Scheme.

It was suggested by respondents that the MSS should refer to the impending roll out of the National Broadband Network and anticipate the opportunities/issues associated with this major Commonwealth Government initiative.

In Hume there have been efforts relating to community renewal and neighbourhood renewal projects, and ‘Place Management’ in Broadmeadows, Craigieburn and Sunbury. These projects should also be recognised in the planning scheme.

The key drivers of Council’s economy should be clearly articulated in its Economic Strategy and the key directions of this strategy reflected in the LPPF.

13.1.6 Transportation During the consultation, transportation was identified as a matter that needs to be addressed more effectively in the planning scheme. Transportation was recognised as an important aspect that contributes to the economic, social and environmental sustainability of the municipality.

Different modes of transport and alternatives to the car need to be encouraged to increase the equity of access to all members of the community to employment, activities and services, as well as promoting better health and well-being outcomes. These alternatives include public transport, walking and cycling in particular.

To effectively encourage people to use these modes of transportation the required infrastructure is needed as well as public transport with sufficient capacity, connectivity to meet people’s movement requirements and integration of these with land uses. It was suggested that there should be a local policy in the planning scheme relating to sustainable modes of transportation.

It was identified that the planning scheme needs to consider the Victorian Transport Plan and what it means for Hume.

13.1.7 Social Needs and Community Safety There are a range of social issues facing the municipality that were identified during the consultation. These include housing affordability, health, housing diversity, public housing, accessibility and liveability. There is a need for key or emerging social issues to be addressed in the LPPF (for example, through the introduction of a licensed premises policy or by encouraging walkability).

It was suggested during the consultation that the concept of liveability needs to be defined in the Hume Planning Scheme. Liveability should be considered individually in each municipality and can relate to a range of matters including access to transport,

70

housing, infrastructure, access to services and education etc. It was noted in the consultation that the SPPF also needs to cover liveability and housing affordability more explicitly.

Risk to people was also identified in the consultation as matter that is not covered in the SPPF (or the entire planning scheme). Risk should be covered in terms of safety, visibility and the like. The need to amend the planning scheme to reflect key components of Council’s Public Health & Wellbeing Plan was also discussed.

13.1.8 Built environment Aspects of the built environment were raised, particularly in the Council workshops. It was indicated that built environments need to be walkable, have a high level of amenity, surveillance for improved safety and active street frontages. Attributes of a pleasant and walkable built environment were discussed, and which were primarily focussed around urban design. For the built environment to be walkable, it was suggested there needs to be a pleasant environment which has shade, street trees and rest points with seating. Furthermore the need for a reason for people to walk, i.e. to a particular destination or attraction was identified. When designing walkable environments the design principles need to consider the needs of elderly people.

It was indicated that the current urban design provisions in the planning scheme are too vague and discretionary and that it has been difficult to enforce good design principles/outcomes, such as interesting/active street frontages.

A clearly articulated Council policy on the form of growth, sustainability, transportation and social needs would provide the basis for more specific and defensible guidance on these built environment issues.

13.2 Summary of recommendations resulting from consultation

From the feedback during the consultation processes, the following recommendations have been made in order to improve the Hume Planning Scheme.

13.2.1 Local Planning Policy Framework

Recommended changes to the objectives and strategies of the LPPF are based on the key themes and subsequent planning issues discussed in section of this report. The recommendations include the following:

• The vision for Hume needs to be updated and clearly defined reflecting alignment with the Council Plan and the Public Health & Wellbeing Plan. This should be articulated in a clause within the MSS. An existing clause could be modified (i.e. Clause 21.01 Municipal Profile – Hume City Council) or a new clause could be introduced.

• Activity centres (Clause 21.07) – there needs to be more guidance on activity centres and it needs to include the hierarchy of the activity centres within the municipality.

71

• Review of the Local Planning Policies to ensure their relevance and ongoing ability to inform the discretion of planning permit applications.

• Review all the maps within the LPPF to enhance their clarity and effectiveness.

• Other specific recommendations to be included here following confirmation of the recommendations in the tables in Appendix F of this report.

The online survey provided some insight into the usefulness of each of the local planning policies. Respondents indicated that the following policies were not useful:

• Pipeworks Fun Market Local Policy (Clause 22.03) (52.4% of respondents)

• Aged Accommodation and Services Local Policy (Clause 22.07) – (52.4% of respondents)

• Animal Boarding and Dog Breeding (Clause 22.08) – (61.9% of respondents)

• Roxburgh Park Activity Centre – South of Somerton Road (Clause 22.12) – (52.4% of respondents)

• Residential Neighbourhood Character – Tullamarine Local Policy (Clause 22.14) – (52.4% of respondents)

• Gaming (Clause 22.17) – (54.5%.of respondents)

Even though more than 50% of respondents did not find these policies useful, they may be required on a strategic level. It is acknowledged that these policies may be more useful to Council’s planners than Council staff in other departments.

As recommended it is important that Council review each of these local planning policies for relevance. Where possible, land use direction could be provided through the MSS or the schedules to the zones and overlays for these areas and matters.

13.2.2 Planning Scheme Controls

In order to achieve the strategies identified a number of changes are required to the planning scheme controls applied within the municipality, including:

• A review of all planning scheme schedules • Rezoning areas currently covered by the Comprehensive Development Zone to

more appropriate zones, i.e. Residential zone etc. • Review of the Urban Floodway Zone • Review all of the Development Plan Overlays • Update/Review Environmental Overlays • Identify and fix problems within the Public Park and Recreational Zone

13.2.3 New strategic work

New strategic work may be required to support future policy development or changes to the provisions of the planning scheme. The work that may be required includes the following:

72

o A long term vision for the municipality

o A clear stance on environmental management, sustainability and climate change

o The management of growth in greenfield and infill areas

o An understanding of housing needs and trends

o The management of activity centres

o Support for the driver’s of Hume’s economy and promotion of new economic drivers

o A transportation strategy that encourages alternative modes of transportation

o Overall liveability within the municipality

o Support for pleasant built environments.

New strategic work may be required to support future policy development or changes to the provisions of the planning scheme. The work that may be required includes the following:

o A housing strategy

o A population policy and strategy

o An employment and land use strategy

o Ground truthing of DSE vegetation mapping

o Sustainability and environmental policies including greenhouse gas emissions, waste management, potable and stormwater / recycled water use, waterways and creeks, sustainable land management, ecologically sustainable development, earthworks and water pollution investigations.

13.2.4 Structural elements

During the consultation there was limited feedback about the overall structure of the Hume Planning Scheme. It was recognised however that the policies in the LPPF need to be written more concisely.

There are a range of structural elements in the Hume Planning Scheme that could be addressed, including:

• The number of local planning policies in the LPPF consistent with the making local policy stronger report.

• The MSS and schedules to the zones and overlays should be used more effectively to minimise the need for so many local planning policies.

73

Section D – Strategic Work Program

74

14.0 STRATEGIC WORK PROGRAM

This section of the report addresses the ‘Strategic Work’ program which Council is committed to undertaking as part of the maintenance of the existing planning scheme as an outcome of this Planning Scheme Review.

14.1 Current Commissioned Strategic Work

An array of strategic research and analysis has been undertaken in-house or commissioned by Hume City Council since the last scheme review in 2000. The completed strategic work (with relevance to the Planning Scheme) includes the following: Document Year adopted

Hume Activity Centre Hierarchy 2004

An Urban Renewal Plan for the Dallas Broadmeadows Area 2003

Sunbury Town Centre Renewal Project 2004

Retail Strategy 2010 endorsed

Green Wedge Management Plan Phase 1 2008

Broadmeadows Transit City Masterplan 2003

Sunbury Town Centre Plan 2008

Better Living in Dallas/Broadmeadows 2003

Hume City Transport Priorities Plan 2004

Hume City Development Principles – Recreation and Community Facilities 2006

Hume Walking and Cycling Strategy 2009

Hume Tourism Strategy 2006-2010 2006

Environmental Planning Atlas 2004

Hume Fauna Study 2004

Hume Greenhouse Action Plan 2009 – 2011 2009

Hume Indigenous Vegetation Study 2003

Hume Natural Heritage Strategy 2006

Pathways to Sustainability – An Environmental Framework 2009

Pathways to Sustainability Action Plan 2009

Hume State of the Environment Report 2007-2008 2010

Towards Surveying Soils on the Urban Fringe in Hume City Council 2004

Hume Development Principles 2006

Health Ageing in Hume City Strategic Directions 2007-2012 2007

Leisure Strategy 2006-2010 2006

Youth Services Framework and Strategy 2004-2007 2004

Horne Street Urban Design Guidelines 2007

Hume City Council Community Safety Survey Report 2008

Hume City Council Community Safety Strategy 2009-2013 2009

Hume City Council Community Social Justice Charter 2008

Hume Economic Strategy 2009

Municipal Health and Wellbeing Plan 2009-2013 2009

Open Space Strategy 2010

Study into the supply and demand of Rural Residential Land in Hume City 2001

75

Recommendation: o In undertaking any revision to the Planning Scheme arising from this Review, it

will be important to undertake a thorough audit of the above reports to determine: - Relevance of information contained in each report; - Most effective and transparent manner for information to be included in the scheme

14.2 On-going Work Program 14.2.1 Council Plan Commitments

The Council Plan (2009-2013) has committed to undertaking further strategic work on a variety of issues of relevance to the Planning Scheme. The current commitments are outlined in Appendix G of this report. These commitments have a significant impact on the working program for the Strategic Planning Department.

14.2.2 Current Initiatives of the Strategic Planning Department

In addition to the above Council Plan commitments, Council’s Strategic Planning Unit is managing a raft of other strategic investigations that are at various stages of development. The projects are listed and categorised as follows. Strategic Projects “In Progress” by Strategic Planning Department

� Hume Integrated Land-use & Transport Strategy (HILATS) � Hume Integrated Growth Area Plan (HIGAP) � Development Plan Guidelines � Housing Growth Requirement/Capacity (DPCD) � Precinct Structure Planning (various) � Benston Street Rejuvenation Project � Various Planning Scheme Amendments which are outlined in detail at Appendix

C of this report.

Strategic Projects identified by Strategic Planning Department � Housing Strategy � Activity Centre Strategy � Green Wedge Management Plan (Phase 2) � Review and amend Local Structure Plans as required � Sunbury Car Parking Strategy � Commence implementation of the recommendations of the Hume Retail Strategy. � Facilitate the development of Craigieburn Town Centre � Undertake Aitken Boulevard Transit Planning – Stage 2 Investigations

14.3 Conclusions regarding Current Commissioned work. As is reflected above, Council has completed a significant amount of strategic work since the last formal review of the scheme. Much of the completed strategic work has resulted in the advancement of Amendments to the Planning Scheme as outlined in this report.

76

It is clear that Council is not only seeking to address issues which it has identified as being outstanding matters, it is also directly seeking to respond to issues of community concern. Having noted this, Council must be careful not to over commit in its strategic work plan. Prioritisation and scheduling of tasks is considered essential to ensure that issues are addressed in a comprehensive and co-ordinated manner. The sequencing of work (and corresponding Amendment preparation) is of critical importance.

Recommendation: o In undertaking any revision to the Planning Scheme arising from this Review, it

will be important to undertake a thorough audit of the above reports to determine: - Relevance of information contained in each report; - Most effective and transparent manner for information to be included in the scheme o In undertaking the above audit consideration must be given to relevant ‘practice

notes’.

77

15.0 FURTHER STRATEGIC WORK PROGRAM

15.1 Gaps in Strategic Work

A number of recurrent themes emerged from consultation throughout the planning scheme review being: The need for a;

• land use vision for Hume City Council.

• comprehensive Housing Strategy for Hume City Council.

• long term direction for Growth Area Planning.

• long term direction for Activity Centres within Hume City Council.

• long term land use based integrated Transport Strategy.

• clear stance on environmental management, sustainability and climate change.

• long term strategy for understanding driver’s of Hume’s economy and employment.

As to the ‘Vision’, strong criticism was made during consultation that the Planning Scheme has no ‘context’ for assessment. Without strong statements about likely population levels, areas for accelerated growth and a built form vision, it is difficult for any decision maker (or any participant in the process) to have a reference point for assessment. Hume City Council faces a broad suite of development issues, and challenges in delivering sustainable communities in growth of existing areas. In addition the Hume community is faced with the wider issues of climate change and peak oil, population growth, health & wellbeing, congestion, economic growth, accessibility, social exclusion and transport disadvantage. Allied to this, and specifically in terms of ‘Housing’, there is a pressing need for the MSS to provide clarity and certainty as the Council has objectives to meet its housing obligations. While Council officers and Councillors have been provided with some direction from Clause 21, it is apparent that the ‘market’, rather than the planning scheme, is driving the planning outcome. It is apparent that a ‘Housing Strategy” is a high priority (perhaps the highest priority) in the next review period so that Council can provide clear direction on where it anticipates extra households will develop. Currently Council is working with DPCD to undertake a Housing Capacity/Growth Assessment project which is currently being undertaken across metropolitan Melbourne to understand the ability to provide housing within established residential areas. The timing of a future housing project needs to be coordinated with the finalisation of the DPCD project so that Council to ensure that that there is correlation between the two projects. There have been a number of significant policy changes at State Government level, which includes recent investigations into extending the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). It is critical that Council formulate an integrated vision for its two Growth Areas; Sunbury and Craigieburn. This vision should be able to inform the work that is undertaken in the future for precinct structure planning that is largely lead by the Growth Areas Authority (GAA). Whilst the GAA is the planning authority for the preparation of Precinct Structure Plans (PSPs), a Council developed growth area vision/framework plan would allow Council to advocate their position on any PSPs that are prepared by the GAA.

78

The recent planning policy shifts, including the announcement of the OMR and Broadmeadows CAD, have reinforced the importance of an updated Hume Transport Planning position is required to reflect and respond to the changing context. It is increasingly important that Hume needs to develop a policy position to reflect the current best practice principles through the development of an updated Integrated Land Use and Transport Strategy. This strategy should demonstrate and applie best practice principles, providing a framework by which future development is guided and future projects and actions can be identified, and implemented.

15.2 Recommended Further Work Program On that basis it is recommended that Council develop an integrated approach to its strategic planning so as to achieve its overarching ‘Hume City Plan 2030’ and Council Plan (2009-2013) ambitions in a co-ordinated manner. A repeated theme to emerge from the consultation was for Council to accumulate all of its strategic research, identify gaps, consult and then prepare a new version of an integrated Hume Strategy Plan – in particular to assist with the integrated planning responses to growth areas and required infrastructure. Such a holistic strategic document would better address Hume’s needs and better position itself for responding to the many land use related challenges that the next 4 – 10 years. Based on Council’s current work program and on the consultation as part of this project, has identified that there are a number of pieces of Further Strategic Work that need to be undertaken. The types of strategies/ policy reports that should be considered to achieve fill the gaps to achieve the overall policy benefit are as follows (in prioritised sense):

High Priority

• Desktop revision to implement Planning Scheme Review regarding the LPPF

• Undertake detailed planning for growth areas

• Following finalisation of the DPCD Housing Capacity Assessments commence the preparation of a Residential Growth and Housing Strategy

• Complete the Hume Integrated Land use and Transport Plan

• Undertake an strategy to understand the long term direction of Activity Centres in Hume.

• Complete and implement the Central Activity District Structure Plan for Broadmeadows (including adjacent land).

• Undertake implementation of the Pathways to Sustainability into the Planning Scheme.

• Undertake implementation of the Hume Open Space Strategy. Medium Priority

• Undertake a strategy to understand the future employment requirements within Hume.

• Undertake a study to understand environmental constraints within Hume.

• Implementation of the Retail Strategy

• Undertake a Landscape Study to ensure areas of significance are protected through the appropriate planning controls.

Lower Priority

• Finalise the Green Wedge Management Plan Phase 2.

• Undertake a licensed premises guidelines planning policy where appropriate.

• Work with DSE to review state owned PUZ land.

79

Section E – Appendices

APPENDIX A – Recommendations APPENDIX B – Previous 2000 Review APPENDIX C – Planning Scheme Amendments APPENDIX D – Further Work prior to C110 (2009) APPENDIX E – Expert Panel Report from LPPF Project APPENDIX F – AECOM Consultation Report 2010 APPENDIX G – Council Plan commitments for Strategic Planning Department

APPENDIX A – Recommendations This report has summarised the strategic and statutory review of the Hume Planning Scheme. It is now recommended that Council adopt the report once it is finalised, and forward it to the Minister for Planning.

• That Council adopt the report as the review required pursuant to section 12B (1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

• That Council forward the report to the Minister for Planning as required by section 12B (5) of the Planning & Environment Act 1987.

• In terms of prioritising a work program, the following specific recommendations are made:

LPPF Amendment

• That the MSS be further edited and reformatted to insert completed strategic work.

• That components of the existing Clause 22 be edited and merged with Clause 21 in keeping with Making Local Policy Stronger guidelines.

• The preparation of a revised MSS needs to have careful regard to the;

− directions articulated in the current Hume City Plan 2030,

− commitments and directions articulated in the current Council Plan, and,

− Health and Wellbeing Plan and its list of Actions.

• The following specific recommendations are made for each individual clause; Clause Recommendation

21.01 2. This clause should be rewritten to remove redundant and outdated information

3. The vision for Hume needs to be updated and clearly defined reflecting alignment with the Council Plan and the Public Health & Wellbeing Plan. This should be articulated in a clause within the MSS. An existing clause could be modified (i.e. Clause 21.01 Municipal Profile – Hume City Council) or a new clause could be introduced.

21.02 4. This clause needs to be rewritten to remove redundant and outdated information

5. Include information from existing strategies that support this clause where appropriate.

21.03 6. This clause should be updated to reflect contemporary issues and to rewrite to remove redundant and outdated information.

7. Include information from existing strategies that support this clause where appropriate.

21.04 8. This clause should be updated to reflect contemporary issues and to rewrite to remove redundant and outdated information.

9. Include information from existing strategies that support this clause where appropriate.

21.05 10. The content should be completely rewritten updated to reflect contemporary issues and to rewrite to remove redundant and outdated information.

11. Investigate whether or not the two themes ‘Natural Environment’ and ‘Built Environment’ should be rewritten.

21.06 12. Review of localities and rewrite accordingly. 13. Undertake reflections of whether the Local Areas section remains relevant

for planning considerations

21.07 14. Undertake a strategy to understand the long term direction for Activity Centres within Hume City Council.

15. Revise Clause 21.07 once this strategy has been undertaken. 16. Activity centres (Clause 21.07) – there needs to be more guidance on

activity centres and it needs to include the hierarchy of the activity centres within the municipality.

21.09 17. Complete review of clause 21.09 reference documents and rewrite is necessary.

22.01 18. Complete review of Clause 22.01 and a full rewrite is necessary.

22.02 19. Review effectiveness of Clause 22.02 . 20. Where appropriate aspects of this policy (22.02) can be merged into the

MSS and included into specific overlays

22.03 21. Review effectiveness of Clause 22.03 22. Where appropriate aspects of this policy (22.03) can be merged into the

MSS and included into specific overlays

22.04 23. Review Clause 22.04 and Council’s vision for the Bulla and Kalkallo localities.

24. Where appropriate aspects of this policy (22.04) can be merged into the MSS and included into specific overlays

22.05 25. Clause 22.05 can be deleted (at completion of the structure plan implementation)

26. Outcomes of any the structure plan should be included in the MSS, zones and overlays

22.06 27. can be deleted once new controls have been written and implemented in accordance with the Sunbury Town Centre Plan. can be deleted (at completion of the structure plan implementation)

22.07 28. Review effectiveness of Clause 22.07 and where appropriate aspects of this policy can be merged and included in the MSS, however, aspects of this LPP may need to be retained in a local policy form.

29. Review 22.07 in line with the recommendations of the Expert Review Panel (Appendix E).

30. Activity centres (Clause 21.07) – there needs to be more guidance on activity centres and it needs to include the hierarchy of the activity centres within the municipality

22.08 31. Review Clause 22.08 to ensure that it is effective in the day-to-day decision making of Council’s statutory planners.

22.09 32. Review Clause 22.09 in line with the recommendations of the Expert Review Panel (Appendix E).

22.10 33. Clause 22.10 should be reviewed having regard to the Sunbury Town Centre Plan. This is likely to result in new controls needing to be written and achieved through the MSS, zones and overlays

22.11 34. Clause 22.11 should be reviewed through the undertaking of a new Activity Centre

35. Strategy as well as having regard to the Retail Review (2010). This clause could easily be written into the MSS with only specific elements being made into a LPP (if required).

22.12 36. should be reviewed to make sure that the intended outcomes are occurring ‘on the ground’. This clause could easily be deleted with some relevant policy aspects being input into the MSS and specific overlay controls.

22.13 37. Review the LPP’s (22.13, 22.14 and 22.15) with regards to whether there are more appropriate VPP tools available

38. Clause 22.13 should be reviewed to make sure that the intended outcomes are occurring ‘on the ground’.

22.14 39. Review the LPP’s (22.13, 22.14 and 22.15) with regards to whether there are more appropriate VPP tools available.

o Clause 22.14 should be reviewed to make sure that the intended outcomes are occurring ‘on the ground’.

22.15 40. Review the LPP’s (22.13, 22.14 and 22.15) with regards to whether there are more appropriate VPP tools available

41. Clause 22.15 should be reviewed to make sure that the intended outcomes are occurring ‘on the ground’.

o Clause 22.15 could easily be written into the MSS with only specific

elements being made into a LPP (if required).

22.16 42. Clause 22.16 should also be reviewed as part of the implementation of the Sunbury Town Centre Structure Plan

43. Clause 22.16 could easily be written into the MSS with only specific elements being made into a LPP (if required).

44.

22.17 45. Clause 22.17 could be incorporated in the MSS in the ‘Particular Use and Development’ section

• Any new planning policy that is drafted in the future needs to be fundamentally reflected (where appropriate) in the restructured MSS (at Clause 21) rather than in a new local policy (at Clause 22) this is consistent with the State Governments recommended approach.

• Review of the Local Planning Policies to ensure their relevance and ongoing ability to inform the discretion of planning permit applications.

• Review all the maps within the LPPF to enhance their clarity and effectiveness.

• That all Local Policies be thoroughly reviewed to ascertain whether they are achieving their intended purpose; are consistent with the Practice Note on Local Policy; and are the most appropriate planning scheme tool to implement

• Review all the maps within the LPPF to enhance their clarity and effectiveness.

• There are a range of structural elements in the Hume Planning Scheme that could be addressed, including:

− The number of local planning policies in the LPPF.

− The MSS and schedules to the zones and overlays should be used more effectively to minimise the need for so many local planning policies.

• Other specific recommendations to be included here following confirmation of the recommendations in the tables in Consultation Report

Zone and Overlay Amendment(s) and Specific Provisions

• That an amendment be prepared to implement zones and overlays (with schedules) arising from the new MSS.

• That all zones and schedules be reviewed to ascertain whether they are achieving their intended purpose; and are the most appropriate planning scheme tool to implement the strategic objective of the MSS.

• That all overlays and schedules be reviewed to ascertain whether they are achieving their intended purpose; and are the most appropriate planning scheme tool to implement the strategic objective of the MSS.

• That all schedules to the Specific Provisions be reviewed to ascertain whether they are achieving their intended purpose.

• That the following specific actions occur;

− Rezoning areas currently covered by the Comprehensive Development Zone to more appropriate zones, i.e. Residential zone etc.

− Review of the Urban Floodway Zone

− Review all of the Development Plan Overlays

− Update/Review Environmental Overlays

− Amend problems within the Public Park and Recreational Zone

− Review the Specific Provisions

− Review and audit Incorporated Documents. Further Work

• To ensure that the current policy gaps within the Hume Planning Scheme are addressed it has been identified throughout the 2010 Review that there is a need for a;

− land use vision for Hume City Council.

− comprehensive Housing Strategy for Hume City Council.

− long term direction for Growth Area Planning.

− long term direction for Activity Centres within Hume City Council.

− long term land use based integrated Transport Strategy.

− clear stance on environmental management, sustainability and climate change.

− long term strategy for understanding driver’s of Hume’s economy and employment.

• Based on Council’s current work program and on the consultation as part of this project, has identified that there are a number of pieces of Further Strategic Work that need to be undertaken. The types of strategies/ policy reports that should be considered to achieve fill the gaps to achieve the overall policy benefit are as follows (in prioritised sense):

High Priority

• Desktop revision to implement Planning Scheme Review regarding the LPPF

• Undertake detailed planning for growth areas

• Following finalisation of the DPCD Housing Capacity Assessments commence the preparation of a Residential Growth and Housing Strategy

• Complete the Hume Integrated Land use and Transport Plan

• Undertake an strategy to understand the long term direction of Activity Centres in Hume.

• Complete and implement the Central Activity District Structure Plan for Broadmeadows (including adjacent land).

• Undertake implementation of the Pathways to Sustainability into the Planning Scheme.

• Undertake implementation of the Hume Open Space Strategy. Medium Priority

• Undertake a strategy to understand the future employment requirements within Hume.

• Undertake a study to understand environmental constraints within Hume.

• Implementation of the Retail Strategy

• Undertake a Landscape Study to ensure areas of significance are protected through the appropriate planning controls.

Lower Priority

• Finalise the Green Wedge Management Plan Phase 2.

• Undertake a licensed premises guidelines planning policy where appropriate.

• Work with DSE to review state owned PUZ land.

Other

• The MSS and schedules to the zones and overlays should be used more effectively to minimise the need for so many local planning policies.

• That the Greenvale Reservoir catchment is recognised for its importance in the Hume Planning Scheme

• In undertaking any revision to the Planning Scheme arising from this Review, it will be important to undertake a thorough audit of the Current Commissioned Strategic Work reports to determine: - Relevance of information contained in each report; - Most effective and transparent manner for information to be included in the scheme

APPENDIX B – Previous 2000 Review

The following table outlines the 2000 review extra work necessary to be undertaken and the current action /status to do with the requirement:

Panel Recommendations Status

1. Bring MSS into line with Planning and Environment Act 1987 by:

• Rename the goals for each Theme into ‘objectives’

• Rename as strategies the dot points listed under the heading “How Will We Achieve Them?”

• Include an explanation of the implementation of the strategies through the application of zones, overlays and schedules.

Both headings have been renamed. Amendment C110 (Oct 2009) updated the Planning Scheme to include best practice format.

2. Amend the MSS to include relevant parts of reference documents (in particular the Bulla General Plan and associated Strategy Plan)

MSS includes relevant and up to date reference documents in the provision via Amendment C70

.This amendment allowed several

recently completed strategies to be included as Reference Documents. However the amendment had no relationship or did not consider any new format panel report recommendations.

3. Ensure designations on the Theme maps (particularly the Residential Map) are consistent when related to the proposed implementation mechanism (e.g. zone) or an explanation provided in the text.

This has been addressed through the Structure Plan maps that provide a clear linkages between the strategic objectives and the implementation via zoning and overlay controls

Panel Recommendations Status

4. Explain terms used on Theme Maps such as ‘inter-urban break and landscape interest’ Terms used in the Themes Maps under 21.01 have now been defined under various headings.

5. Rectify all the issues raised at page 28 of Council’s submission to the Panel This has been addressed.

6. Apply the Comprehensive Development Zone to areas of undeveloped land covered by Local Structure Plans to replace the use of circles of Business 1 zones and Design and Development Overlays

This has been completed.

7. Delete all proposed Design and Development Overlays and amend the maps accordingly. All DDOs have been deleted

8. Replace Schedule 4 to the Design and Development Overlay with a Development Plan Overlay, with a new schedule containing similar provisions.

Relates to Evans Street Sunbury which now has now affected by DPO4

9. Include the land bound by Macedon, Evans, Brooks and O’Shannassy Streets in a Residential 1 Zone until the completion of the Sunbury Township Master Plan.

Land is now zoned part Residential 1 zone and part Business 1 Zone

10. Consider the use of the Environmental Rural Zone in place of the Rural Zone where an Environmental Significance Overlay has also been proposed

Waterways and riparian zones provided with ESO1 or ESO2. No ERZ applied with zoning varying from GWZ, PPRZ, and PCRZ. This approach would seem to be adequate for the purpose.

11. Amend the proposed schedules to the Business zones to apply floor area limits only where the centres or land can be identified in the ‘Land’ column

This has been achieved in part ongoing reviews of the Business zone are adequate.

Panel Recommendations Status

12. The following policies should be deleted from the Local Planning Policy Framework:

1. Melbourne Airport Local Policy

2. Hume Freeway Extension and E14 Arterial Road Local Policy

3. Urban Development Areas Policy

4. Inter-urban Break Local Policy can be deleted provided that the term and its meaning are clarified in the MSS

5. Potentially Contaminated Land Local Policy

6. Development Contributions Local Policy

All policies have been deleted from Clause 22

13. The Cooper Street Local Policy be revised to include the strategies in the MSS Cooper Street policy covered in Somerton section of the MSS (Clause 21.06-7)

Panel Recommendations Status

14. Consider:

combining the Industrial Development and Annandale Road Local Policies

developing the Siting of Buildings Local Policy and Approach Roads Local Policy into an Urban Design and Siting Policy with more broad application

Clause 22.01-2 provides policy in relation to business parks within the municipality including the land in the vicinity of Annandale Road.

Clause 22.02 still only applies to Rural Zone, Environmental Rural Zone and Rural Living Zone and as such this suggestion has not been taken up.

15. Delete the contents of the second dot point under ‘Policy’ in the Rural Areas Local Policy (‘Particular Proposals of Merit’).

Rural Areas Local Policy no longer in the scheme

16. Revise Schedule 2 to the Environmental Significance Overlay to include reference to the need to assess the impact of development upon the creek environs and to ensure any impacts are adequately ameliorated.

Achieved

17. Include the Pipeworks Fun Market site within a Business 2 zone, with a floor area limit for shop inserted into the Schedule to the zone

Achieved

18. Prepare a local policy outlining the Council’s intention for the Pipeworks site Achieved

19. Any boundary adjustments to the ANEF contours approved as part of the Melbourne Airport Master Plan should be reflected in changes to the Airport Environs Overlay boundaries

MAEO controls approved in May 2007 in accordance with 2003 Melbourne Airport Masterplan

Panel Recommendations Status

20. The Adams Group land in Riddell Road, Sunbury (Submission 13) be included within a Rural Living Zone with a 6 ha minimum

Land now in a GWA Zone with a minimum 6 hectare subdivision size

21. Council should not issue a permit for subdivision of the Adams Group land in Riddell Road until it is satisfied that the current oversupply of rural residential lots is reduced in compliance with Ministerial Direction No 6 and 6A, and the Municipal Strategic Statement should be amended to indicate this.

Land identified as “future Rural Living” on Sunbury Structure Plan map at 21.01 but no associated strategy for the land included in accordance with Panel recommendation

22. Council and the Department of Infrastructure investigate the appropriateness of applying a Special Use Zone for this site in the light of the subdivision requirements of the Rural Zone which may be inappropriate.

Land is now zoned GWA subject to a schedule

23. Council and the Department of Infrastructure investigate the appropriateness of applying a Special Use Zone for the Future Terminal Station site, Hume Highway, Donnybrook in the light of the subdivision requirements of the Rural Zone which may be inappropriate

Achieved.

24. The Local Structure Plan for the Mt Ridley Estate should be given effect in the new scheme as a means of meeting the requirements of the Development Plan Overlay

Provided for at Clause 21.06-6

25. The significance and health of the remaining trees around the Mt Ridley homestead should be assessed by an appropriate expert

Achieved although not a planning scheme related issue.

26. Guidelines for the Northcorp Industrial Park form the basis of a Local Policy that deals specifically with large industrial subdivisions

Clause 22.01-2 provides policy in relation to business parks within the municipality including the Northcorp Business Park

Panel Recommendations Status

27. Include 1179 Pascoe Vale Road (Broadmeadows Exchange) in a Business 1 Zone Achieved

28. Include 143-145 Melrose Drive (Tullamarine Exchange) in a Residential 1 Zone Achieved

29. Include 37 Camp Street (Broadmeadows TOC) in a Business 3 Zone Achieved

30. Include the land at Lot B on PS 116962, Racecourse Road, Sunbury in a Rural Zone until completion of the Council’s study into the future use of the site.

Achieved - Zoned Faming Zone (Schedule 3)

31. Include the Zone substation at 392 Barry Road, Broadmeadows in an Industrial 1 Zone Achieved

32. Include the Office and depot at 3 – 56 King William Street, Broadmeadows in a Business 3 Zone Achieved

33. Include the Zone substation on the Hume Highway south of Patullos Lane, Somerton in an Industrial 1 Zone Achieved

34. Amend Theme Map 5: Activity Centres to include reference to the Campbellfield Shopping Centre Theme maps replaced with Structure Plan Maps via Amendment C70 to reflect policy requirements under Melbourne 2030.

Campbellfield Plaza Shopping Centre recognised in the Activity Centres Hierarch Study (2004) as Neighbourhood Activity Centre and this is incorporated at Clause 21.07 under “Activity Centres”

35. Consider designating maximum shop and office floor areas for the Campbellfield shopping centre in the schedule to the Business 1 Zone.

20,000sqm designated in Schedule to Business 1 Zone

Panel Recommendations Status

36. Include the site of the Craigieburn Police Station, Craigieburn Road, Craigieburn within the Business 2 Zone Achieved

37. Alter the Schedule to the Business 2 Zone to include a reference to the Craigieburn Police Station site with specified maximum office and shop floor areas based on the current floor area of the building

1600sqm designated in Schedule to Business 2 Zone

38. Include the corrections to the road zones and application of the Public Acquisition Overlay in the scheme as detailed in the Council’s submission

39. Include Station Street, between Horne Street and the railway line in a Road Zone 1 Council needs to determine whether this should be rezoned or not – need to understand justification for recommendation made in first instance by panel. Horne street was reviewed as part of Sunbury Town Centre Structure Plan – which has made specific recommendations for this area which Council will undertake in time.

40. The Public Acquisition Overlay for the E14 Arterial Road must not be shown over Commonwealth owned land, but should be applied in the future concurrently with the application of a zone under the planning scheme

N/A

41. Make minor wording changes to accommodate those requested by the Australian Pacific Airports (Melbourne) Pty Ltd

Economic and strategic importance of the airport has been reinforced in the MSS although further amendment to MSS in relation to Melbourne Airport is required given approval of new MAEO in May 2007. (Discussed elsewhere in audit)

Panel Recommendations Status

42. In respect of land between McNabs Road and the Maribyrnong River :

� the 5 ha minimum subdivision area be deleted from the schedule to the Rural Zone and a permit be issued in accordance with the conditions specified in the Council’s submission.

� The Rural Land Use Theme Map be amended to show the land as a ‘Rural area’

Land has been subdivided and is zoned Green Wedge and shown as such of the Framework Plan but is not designated on the Rural Areas Structure Plan

43. Amend the map accompanying the schedule to the Rural Zone to remove the land on the west of Mickelham Road, south of the Attwood Police Complex from the 12 ha minimum subdivision area.

This land is now in Green Wedge Zone – now change can be made to land outside UGB until further investigations (GWMP) is completed.

44. Two parcels of Council owned open space areas in Broadmeadows that are within the Airport Environs Overlay be included in the Public Park and Recreation Zone

There are large swathes of Council parkland in PPRZ in Broadmeadows affected by the MAEO.

45. The alterations to the permit for the land located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Donnybrook Road and the Hume Highway are amended as requested by the submitter.

N/A

46. An additional dot point be added to the Kalkallo Local Policy relating to the prevention of the spread of salinity in the township

This is included at Clause 22.04

47. The proposed permit for an existing Shell petrol station complex located on Pascoe Vale Road, north of the Western Ring Road, Jacana be amended to include reference to ‘Convenience Store’

N/A

48. Council investigate zoning options for the Salesian College site, Sunbury including a Residential 1 Zone or a Special Use Zone for the school buildings proper, and a Rural Zone for the agricultural operations

School is entirely Residential 1 Zone (This appears appropriate)

Panel Recommendations Status

49. Council discuss the zoning options with the Salesian College representatives and the Department of Infrastructure to achieve the most appropriate outcome

As above

50. The Framework Plan and Theme Maps 4 and 7 be altered to reflect approval of Amendment L38 Theme Maps replaced by structure plans via C70.

51. Lot 3 on LP123172, west side of Mickleham Road, Attwood be included in an Urban Floodway Zone with a Public Acquisition Overlay

Land not zoned UFZ – land title reference not traceable on Land Victoria Land zoned PUZ, GWZ or R1Z but no LSIO or SBO evident

52. The Vegetation Protection Overlay be applied to the Headland Park estate, Sunbury, with a Schedule reflecting the current controls contained in agreement/s applying to the land

No VPO has been applied to reflect the agreements in place regarding vegetation on the land.

53. The extension of the Vegetation Protection Overlay applying to land along the Melbourne - Bendigo railway reserve approximately one kilometre south of Sunbury be discussed to determine whether the level of documentation is sufficient to warrant its inclusion at this stage

No VPO has been applied to this section of the railway reserve

54. The landfill site at the corner of Victoria street and Western Avenue, Tullamarine remain in a Rural Zone as exhibited, and an Environmental Audit Overlay be applied to the site

Land is now included inside the UGB within a Farming Zone (Schedule 3) with an EAO – this is in accordance with the new forma panel’s recommendation This may and warrant review given the nature of the use and the ongoing operation of the landfill.

Panel Recommendations Status

55. Land currently within the Merri Urban Development Zone and proposed in the exhibited scheme to be affected by the Design and Development Overlay Schedules 1, 2 and 3, be replaced by a Comprehensive Development Zone. The content of the Schedule to the zone applicable to this area is to be resolved between the Council, the Department of Infrastructure and the relevant developer representatives.

Roxburgh Park in CDZ as recommended

56. Resolution of the strategic direction for land along Western Avenue, Tullamarine be achieved and the appropriate zoning applied as soon as practically possible.

Land is now included inside the UGB within a Farming Zone (Schedule 3) and Buisness 3Z and B2Z for Trade Park with an EAO affecting the landfill site.

At this stage the Farming Zone is considered appropriate given the nature of the use and the ongoing operation of the landfill.

57. Include recognition of the Springvale Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant. Not referred to in “Infrastructure” section of MSS. Noted in the Sunbury section of the MSS (Clause 21.06-8)

58. The Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO4) proposed over the southern portion of the land at the south-west corner of Station and Evans Streets, Sunbury be deleted from the planning scheme map

Achieved

59. The Craiglee property, Sunbury Road, Sunbury be included in a Rural Living Zone with a 6 ha minimum Located in a GWAZ with 6 hectare minimum

Panel Recommendations Status

60. ‘Regional open space areas’ on the Framework Plan (along watercourses in particular) to be indicated by a dotted line.

Open space and conservation areas indicated by green on coloured framework plans and this is adequate for the identification of these areas

61. The zone boundary for the Sylvania Hotel at 1631 Sydney Road, Campbellfield be altered to include all the land in a Residential 1 Zone

Not achieved. Land in Industrial 1 Zone with small section in north east corner in R1Z

62. Changes requested by Parks Victoria to be included. (Inclusion of Guide to Priorities for Melbourne’s Open Space Network – Northern Tributaries (Melbourne Parks and Waterways Dec 1995) and The Woodlands Historic Park Management Plan 1988 as reference documents)

Reference is included at Clause 21.05

63. The Department of Infrastructure frame a clause exempting Parks Victoria and contractors working on their behalf from the requirement for a permit for buildings and works in the Environmental Protection and Vegetation Protection Overlays

VPP issue and exemptions have been included

64. The Council determine with the Department of Infrastructure whether a specific exemption clause is required for Parks Victoria for use and development in the Public Use Zone 1, in relation to the Greenvale Reservoir

VPP issue – permit not required for use and development pursuant to 36.01-5

65. The Department of Infrastructure determine the appropriateness or otherwise of mandatory referral requirements for all industrial applications to the EPA and Western Water

VPP issue – Referrals governed by Clause 66

66. The document ‘Planning Measures for Environment Protection – A Practical Guide for Local Government (March 1996)’ be included as a reference document.

Reference is included at Clause 21.05

67. The planning scheme maps be amended to accord with the new information provided by Melbourne Water in relation to flood prone land

Special Building Overlays have been included on the maps

Panel Recommendations Status

68. Melbourne Water continue its discussions with the Department of Infrastructure in relation to Statewide stormwater management policies

This has been ongoing with various amendment to the VPPs over time

69. Make minor wording changes to local policies to emphasise the need to address stormwater issues Local policies included reference to stormwater management where appropriate

70. Apply the Public Uses Zone 1 to land in Melbourne Water ownership and used for operational purposes; other Melbourne Water land should remain in the underlying zone

Achieved

71. Include the following open space areas in the Public Park and Recreation Zone : Shankland Reserve from Yuroke Creek to Crespin Place; Otway Crescent Reserve from Barry Road to Redesdale Street; and Malcolm Creek Reserve

Malcolm Creek Reserve in CDZ rather than PPRZ

72. Review the Strategy and policy for the Sunbury activity centre to ensure that the strategy and policy intent for the centre is adequately expressed in the scheme.

Sunbury Activity Centre dealt with in MSS 21.06, with a local policy at 22.06 and neighbourhood character policy at 22.13. The policy direction is often repeated between these three policy areas and it may be worth considering rationalising these. The statement that that Sunbury has a “unique country town character” seems to require review given its growth and development.

73. Include the Oaklands Junction Quarry, Oaklands Road, Oaklands within a Special Use Zone with an extractive industry schedule

Achieved

Panel Recommendations Status

74. Modify the proposed permit for the extractive industry operations at Oaklands Junction Quarry, Oaklands Road, Oaklands so that it is valid for the life of the Works Authority

75. Include reference to Council’s strategy in relation to extractive industry operations. Reference is included at Clauses 21.06-6 and 21.05

76. Investigate the possibility of indicating the Penfield airport on the planning scheme base Airport not recognised on any framework map or rural areas structure plan map. Zoned Green Wedge. Consider another zone such as SU or PU depending on ownership

77. Include the changes requested by the DNRE to the Municipal Strategic Statement and Local Policies where appropriate. The Woodlands Historic Park should either be indicated on the Heritage and Environment Theme Map and/or referenced in the Tourism section of the strategy

Woodlands Park recognised in Clause 21.06-9 and shown on Strategic Framework Plan No. 1 as Open Space and Conservation Area.

78. Acknowledge any significant stone resources in the city. Reference is included at Clause 21.06-6

79. Within the Heritage and Environment section, include matters of relevance from the Shire of Bulla Local Conservation Strategy.

Noted at Clause 21.05 at “Planning Scheme Response” that Council will continue to apply the Heritage Overlay to places having cultural heritage significance.

Panel Recommendations Status

80. Replace the exhibited Vegetation Protection Overlays with Environmental Significance Overlays for the Evans Street grassland, Mt. Ridley grassland and woodland, Cooper Street grassland, Camp Road plains grassland and woodland, and Northern railway grassland

Achieved

81. Council discuss with the Department of Infrastructure the approach to be taken for the protection of dead vegetation This is largely addressed through the NVPP process and 57.12.

82. Include Crown land on Maps 2, 3, 6, 13, and 15 in the Public Conservation and Resource Zone as requested by DNRE

Maps 2 & 3 do not designate any land PCRZ but Maps 6, 13 & 15 designated crown land PCRZ.

83. Include Open space reserves identified by DNRE in Sunbury in the Public Park and Recreation Zone Achieved

84. Include Crown land in the Kalkallo area identified by DNRE in the Public Conservation and Resource Zone Achieved

85. Amend the extent of the Vegetation Protection Overlay over Cooper Street grassland to accord with the area identified as significant in the Register of the National Estate

Achieved

86. Amend the Industrial Areas Local Policy to include reference to the need for the Council to take into account the potential impact of industries upon the Cooper Street Grasslands

Included at Clause 22.01-3

87. Review the proposed zoning of the area bound by Riddell Road, Spavin Drive, Kismet Creek open space reserve and Bundanoon Park with all other areas with similar designations in the Municipal Strategic Statement and similar existing zonings, such as Barrington Lane, to ensure consistency and transparency in the approach to the zoning of these areas of land

Land included in LDRZ as is the land along Barrington Lane so as to be consistent

88. Amend the Schedule 2 to the Environmental Significance Overlay basically in accordance with the draft submitted to the Panel by MCMC

Achieved

Panel Recommendations Status

89. Apply the ESO2 for a distance of 100 metres from the Merri Creek watercourse, other than over the Craigieburn and Cooper Street Grasslands

Achieved

90. Carry out minor zoning and Overlay changes as outlined in the report relating to the submission by the Merri Creek Management Committee

Appropriate underlying zoning has been applied along the Creek

91. Review the Restructure Plan for the Bulla township to ensure it is up to date and accurate Restructure Overlay applies to the land bounded by Somerton Road and Cahill, Sharp and Bourke Streets in accordance with the Townships Local Policy at Clause 22.04

92. Clarify the plans accompanying the Restructure Overlay for the Bulla and Kalkallo townships to ensure their intent is clear

Reviewed and changes implemented under Amendment C38

93. Include the strategy relating to townships and consider the necessity for a policy to guide decision making in these townships.

Townships are noted in the Rural Areas section of the MSS however Local Policy at Clause 22.04 provides appropriate policy considerations for the Townships of Kalkallo and Bulla

94. The appropriate zoning for the land bounded by Somerton Road and Cahill, Sharp and Bourke Streets, Bulla be determined following development of the strategy

Township zone applied and is appropriate with the use of the RO for the land

95. Apply a Development Plan Overlay to the undeveloped land within the Goonawarra Estate. This Overlay schedule will be based on the requirements contained in the exhibited DDO Schedule 1

DPO8 has been applied to the land

Panel Recommendations Status

96. The southern area of land known as ‘Bundanoon’ be included in a Comprehensive Development Zone until the location of various land uses in known

Land is in a R1Zone with DPO7 and is designated as future residential in the structure plan

97. Identify the northern part of the ‘Woodbourne Hills’ as an area of ‘special investigation’ on the Residential Theme map and alter the MSS to explain that the area is environmentally sensitive.

The Woodbourne Hills areas identified on the Sunbury and Surrounds Structure plan as a “Special Investigation Area” which designated it as an area of environmental sensitivity

98. Include the ‘Woodbourne Hills’ area within the Rural Living Zone with a 6ha minimum subdivision size until the oversupply of low density and rural residential land is reduced

Land is in a GWA Zone with 6 hectare minimum

99. Should a permit for use and development of the Roxburgh Park Sub-regional shopping centre prior to approval of the scheme, the land should be included in a Business 1 Zone and the Council should give consideration to the need for floor area limits in the Business 1 Zone schedule

Include in Schedule to Business 1 Zone with floor limit of 18,300sqm

100. Should no permit issue fro the Roxburgh Park Sub-regional centre, the land for the centre should be included in a Business 1 Zone with a Development Plan Overlay.

Included in a Business 1 Zone

101. Show the land at The Sanctuary, Riddell Road, Sunbury as an area of “special investigation’ on the Residential theme map and alter the MSS to contain strategy relating to the content and purpose of the investigation.

The Sanctuary Area is identified on the Sunbury and Surrounds Structure plan as a “Special Investigation Area” which designated it as an area of environmental sensitivity

Panel Recommendations Status

102. Include the land at The Sanctuary, Riddell Road within the Rural Living Zone with a 6ha minimum subdivision size until the oversupply of low density and rural residential land is reduced

In GWA with 6 hectare minimum

103. The Council proceed with the review of its planning strategy (currently known as the General Plan) and implement the outcomes of this process as soon as practicable as an amendment to the planning scheme

This review has been undertaken

104. As part of the strategic review the Council should:

• carry out land capability studies for all rural and rural residential land to determine appropriate rural uses and suitability for rural residential subdivision

• conduct independent research into the market demand and supply of low density residential and rural residential land in the City

• review the rural land strategies with a view to supporting and encouraging improvements to agricultural practice and options in the City, including farm size

This has been undertaken with implementation of the outcomes of the study to form part of Green Wedge Management Plan

105. The Council proceed with the additional work required to identify sites of geological, geomorphological and also topographical significance

Completed Hume Environmental Planning Atlas

106. Undertake an amendment process to apply an ESO around the Springvale Wastewater Treatment Plant and make associated changes to the MSS.

ESO not applied to land around the Springvale Wastewater Treatment Plant. Reference to plant in Clause 21.06-8 but no action identified to apply ESO. Land has PUZ applied to it.

APPENDIX C – Planning Scheme Amendments The following amendments have been processed and considered by Council since 2000:

C2 2 NOV 2000 Rezone land on the eastern side of Springbank Street, Tullamarine, adjoining the south side of the Tullamarine Freeway, from Commonwealth Land to Business 3 Zone

C4 30 JAN 2003 Rezone 121.92 ha of land at 1170 Mickleham Road, Greenvale from Rural Zone to Residential 1 Zone. Introduce a Development Plan Overlay and a Vegetation Protection Overlay to facilitate the development of the site for residential purposes

C5 11 JUN 2009 Introduce a Special Building Overlay for land distributed throughout the southern section of the municipality that has been identified by Melbourne Water as being affected by natural

overland flows in a 1 in 100 year storm event

C6 19 JUN 2001 Rezone 7 ha on the south-east corner of Somerton and Pascoe Vale Roads, Coolaroo from Public Use Zone (Service and Utility) to a Business 4 Zone; Modify Clause 21.03-1 of the Municipal Strategic Statement by introducing an interim policy for the site

C7 27 JAN 2005 Rezones 8.1 ha of land at part Lot 2 PS 7204, part Lot 3 PS7204 and part Lot 29 PS88021 on the eastern side of Harker Street, Sunbury from Rural Zone to part Residential 1 Zone and part Public Park and Recreation Zone

C8 27 AUG 2001 Include 6 parcels of land on the north side and 3 parcels of land on the south side of Cooper Street, Campbellfield/Somerton (between the Hume Highway and the Merri Creek) in a Public Acquisition Overlay to allow for the future duplication of Cooper Street ** In conjunction with Whittlesea Planning Scheme Amendment C8 **

C9 1 FEB 2001 Rezone the former Sunbury Primary School on the south side of Macedon Street between O'Shanassy Street and Stawell Street from Public Use Zone 2 (Education) to Public Use Zone (Health and Community) to allow for the development of land for the Sunbury Integrated Care Centre

C10 30 NOV 2000 Rezone 12-122 Barry Road, Campbellfield and the rear of Barry Road, Campbellfield from Public Use Zone - Service and Utilities to Industrial 1 Zone

C11 (PT2) 19 JAN 2006 Reserves land for the Roads Corporation for the future upgrade of Hume Freeway, including the Donnybrook Road interchange, and access restoration roads between Craigieburn and Beveridge; Substitutes a new Schedule to Clause 52.17 to exempt the route from native vegetation clearance controls; Substitutes a new Schedule to Clause 44.03 to exempt the route from the requirements of the Rural Floodway Overlay

C11 (Pt1) 2 FEB 2006 Apply a Public Acquisition Overlay to reserve land on the east and west sides of the Hume Highway in the vicinity of Donnybrook Road, Kalkallo to reserve land for the interchange at Donnybrook Road

C12 7 DEC 2002 Introduce the Sunbury Railway Station buildings situated approx. 300 metres south of the Macedon Road bridge in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay in accordance with Section 48 of the Heritage Act 1995

C13 23 JAN 2003 Rezone land on the eastern side of the northern end of Springbank Street Tullamarine adjoining the south side of the Tullamarine Freeway known as Part Consolidated Lot Volume 9757 Folio (17.7 hectares) Lot 5 LP 44238 Volume 8430 Folio

260 (2.84 hectares) and Lot 6 LP 44238 Volume 8760 Folio 849 (1.94 hectares) from Commonwealth Land to Business 3 Zone

C15 6 SEP 2002 Rezone 322 hectares of land being Lot 1 Plan of Subdivision 138199, Lot 1 Plan of Subdivision 138200 and Lot 2 Plan of Subdivision 138200 known as the Sanctuary, situated on the northern side of Riddell Road approximately 5 kilometres north of the Sunbury town centre from a Rural Living Zone to part Residential 1 Zone, part Low Density Residential Zone and part Rural Living Zone; Amend the Schedule to the Rural Living Zone to allow a one hectare minimum subdivision of the site; and Include all the land in a Development Plan Overlay

C16 8 AUG 2003 Apply a Public Acquisition Overlay over the land required for the future route of Melbourne Airport Rail Link; Apply a Design and Development Overlay over both the existing rail reservation between the Western Ring Road and a point approximately 400 metres south of Barry Road and the future route of the Melbourne Airport Rail Link so that a permit is to issue for new buildings and works carried out in respect of the Melbourne Airport Rail Link. If these buildings and works are considered to be in conformity with the Development Plan approved under the requirements of the Development Plan Overlay, the permit will be exempt from the notice, objection and review provisions of the Act. The Minister for Planning will be the responsible authority for the approval of the Development Plan and Environmental Management Plan required under the Development Plan Overlay, also for the planning permit required under the Design and Development Plan Overlay; Delete the Development Plan Overlay ( Schedule 10) from land within the rail reservation

C017 21 FEB 2002 Rezone 5.5 ha on the south-west corner of Western Avenue and Wright Street, Westmeadows, bounded to the south by the Tullamarine Freeway, from Rural Zone to Industrial 3 Zone.

C018 30 APR 2003 Apply a Design and Development Overlay over both the existing

and future routes (Albion West option) of the Melbourne Airport Rail Link so that a permit is required for new buildings and works in respect of the rail link. If these buildings and works are considered to be in conformity with the Development Plan approved under the requirements of the Development Plan Overlay, the permit will be exempt from the notice, objection and review provisions of the Act.The Minister for Planning will be the responsible authority for approval of the Development Plan and Environmental Management Plan required under the Development Plan Overlay, also for the planning permit required under the Design and Development Plan Overlay

C19 (Pt 1) 27 NOV 2003 Correct spelling, grammatical, formatting and referencing errors and omissions of the Local Planning Policy Framework, Zones (schedules) and Overlays (schedules) and corrects mapping maps.

C19 (Pt 2) 8 APR 2004 Delete part of the Heritage Overlay (HO38) as it applies to

properties fronting on to The Avenue, Sunbury.

C20 5 APR 2001 Include the Timber Chalet site of the former Greenvale Hospital, Providence Road, Greenvale in a Heritage Overlay; List the site in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay; Correct the location of the Water Tower, Sunbury Railway Station, by relocating the site further to the south

C21 08/04/2004 Rezone the former Melbourne Water Reservoir at the corner of Somerton and Pascoe Vale Roads, Coolaroo being Lots 2, 4, 5 and S3, Plan of Subdivision 422330A, from a Public Use 1 (Service and Utility) Zone to a Business 4 Zone. Vary the Local Planning Policy Framework by introducing a new "Roxburgh Park

Activity Centre-South of Somerton Road Local Policy" and modify three existing Local Planning Policies.

C22 04/09/2001 Apply a Public Acquisition Overlay to land required for the future route of the Hume Freeway link between the Hume Highway north of Craigieburn and the Metropolitan Ring Road; Delete the existing Public Acquisition Overlay from the former freeway reservation; Rezone the former freeway reservation to Public Use Zone and include it in a Public Environmental Significance Overlay ( where none currently exists); Introduce a Design and Development Overlay and associated schedule over land each side of the proposed route to require noise attenuation measures to be incorporated within specified types of new development; Exempt land within the route alignment from the provisions of the Environmental Significance Overlay 2 and the clause relating to clearance of native vegetation

C27 18/04/2002 Amend the existing Schedule 1 to the Comprehensive Development Zone to include the Rolling Meadows Comprehensive Development Plan and add to the description of the land affected by the schedule to include the north-east part of Sunbury in acknowledgment of the location of the Rolling Meadows estate; Include as Incorporated Documents in the Planning scheme, Comprehensive Development Plans for the G Adams Corporation and Silverton land holdings at Craigieburn, and the Urban and Regional Land Corporation holdings at Roxburgh Park and Jacksons Hill along with the Comprehensive Development Plan for the Rolling Meadows estate in Sunbury; Correct a textural error under Clause 21/03-01 of the Municipal Strategic Statement ( MSS ) by completing an interim policy statement was inserted into the Scheme incorrectly under amendment C6. The land affected is approximately seven hectares previous;y owned by the Melbourne Water Corporation on the south west corner of Somerton Road and Pascoe Vale Road Coolaroo.

C28 30/01/2003 Rezone 4 parcels of land ( total area of approximately 135 hectares ) known as Crown Allotments 7D, 7F, 7G and 7H that comprised the former Greenvale Hospital site located on the south west side of Providence Road Greenvale from Public Use Zone 3 ( Health and Community ) to part Public Conservation and Resource Zone and part Special Use Zone. Also insert a new Schedule to the Special Use Zone that relates to the land

C29 31/10/2002 Rezone 149 to 155 Malmsbury Drive Meadow Heights from Public Use Zone to a Residential 1 Zone.

C31 25/03/2004 Rezone the south west corner of Western Avenue and Wright Street (Part Crown Section 6, Parish of Tullamarine and by Certificate of Title Volume 8698 Folio 629) Westmeadows from Rural Zone to a Business 3 Zone.

C32 29/04/2002 Rezone a narrow section of land either side of the existing Cooper Street Somerton between the Merri Creek and the Hume Highway from the existing zone to a Road Zone Category 1 Delete the narrow section of Public Acquisition Overlay either side of the existing Cooper Street between the Merri Creek and the Hume Highway Somerton Insert a site specific clause into Schedule 2 of the Environment Significance Overlay to enable the works for the Cooper Street widening to occur without further planning approval

C33 04/07/2004 Insert a new clause 22.12 - Residential Neighbourhood Character - Tullamarine Local Policy into the Local Planning Policy Framework. The amendment applies to the existing residential area of Tullamarine which is contained in the Residential 1 Zone.

C34 29/04/2002 Remove a portion of the existing Public Acquisition Overlay over the Shannon Rise Estate located immediately south of Somerton Road Greenvale and realign the Overlay further to the east.

C35 29/04/2002 Introduce a Heritage Overlay to include H1964 Railway Bridge at Sunbury Hill Sunbury and update the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay to be consistent with the Victorian Heritage Register.

C36 13/12/2002 Rezone land along the Craigieburn Freeway ( between the Northern Ring Road and the Hume Highway ) from the existing zones to Road Zone Category 1 and remove the Public Acquisition Overlay.

C38 14/09/2006 A number of changes in the scheme, specifically within the Kalkallo township, to facilitate the appropriate restructure of the township for rural-residential purposes.

C38 (Pt 2) 14/09/2006 Restructure the Kalkallo Township by introducing a road closure overlay to obsolete road reserves and amending the Kalkallo Restructure Plan

C38 (Pt 1) 14/09/2006 Restructure the Kalkallo Township by: extending the area covered by the Township Zone, the Public Conservation and Resource Zone and the Public Park and Recreation Zone; extending the Vegetation Protection Overlay on the eastern side of the Township; and revising the Township Policy to require new development to be accessible by a formed road and to have appropriate storm water Drainage.

C39 14/08/2003 Rezone Lot 1047 on PS 425228Y Craigieburn from Rural Zone to a Comprehensive Development Zone with a Development Plan Overlay on the land.

C41 02/06/2003 Delete the Development Plan Overlay on part of the Craigieburn

Bypass

C43 27/05/2004 Rezone Lots 3, 4, 5 on LP 84408 and part of Lot 2 on LP 82623 Cornish Street, Sunbury between Anderson Road and Elizabeth Drive, Sunbury from Industrial 3 Zone to Residential 1 Zone and include an Environmental Audit Overlay over the land.

C44 21/08/2003 Introduce interim heritage control over 7 Macedon Street Sunbury known as Ardloney House

C45 (Pt 1) 22/12/2005 Modifies the Municipal Strategic Statement to include policy objectives in relation to neighbourhood character and reference to the Hume Neighbourhood Character Study 2003 and also introduces two new local policies relating to the Neighbourhood Character within Sunbury and Tullamarine.

C45 19/09/2005 Modify the Hume Municipal Strategic Statement to include a reference to the Hume Neighbourhood Character Study and introduce Residential Neighbourhood Character Local Planning Policies for Sunbury and Tullamarine. Amendment split, also refer to PL-SP/03/5034.

C45 (Pt 2) 22/12/2005 Introduces a new policy into the Local Planning Policy Framework relating to the Neighbourhood Character of Westmeadows.

C46 20/01/2005 Rezones Lot 19 Volume 4356 Folio 123 Reservoir Road, Sunbury from Rural Zone to Residential 1 Zone and introduces a Development Plan Overlay and a new Schedule to the land.

C47 02/10/2003 Introduce a Business 3 zone to former Commonwealth land including the former Bureau of Meteorology land and part of the Maygar Barrack sites in Camp Road Broadmeadows.

C48 24/11/2003 Change the location of the Urban Growth Boundary in the

municipality of the City of Hume.

C49 15/03/2004 Introduce a Business 3 Zone to former Commonwealth Land described as Lot 1 LP 2850 70A Railway Crescent and Lot LP2850 61Blair Street, Broadmeadows.

C50 18/05/2006 Rezones various parcels of land south of Cooper Street, Campbellfield, between Rex Road and Merri Creek, to Industrial 1 Zone & Public Conservation and Resource Zone. Removes part of the Environmental Significance Overlay, Introduces the Development Plan Overlay and the Environmental Audit Overlay, and updates the schedule to Clause 52.17.

C51 02/12/2004 Rezone Lot 42 PS 348064G on the north west corner of Northcorp Boulevard and Camp Road, Broadmeadows from Business 5 Zone to Business 3 Zone.

C52 22/07/2004 Include an additional 192 heritage places within the Heritage Overlay in Clause 43.01 of the Hume Planning Scheme

C53 15/04/2006 Apply heritage controls over identified places and introduce a local planning policy to guide landowners, developers and Council when assessing planning applications for heritage places.

C54 14/04/2005 Removes a Public Acquisition Overlay from land at the Rolling Meadows estate in Sunbury, which provided for a road connection that has not been proposed since 1996; and the realignment of a zone boundary in Western Avenue, Westmeadows, to accord with the proposed subdivision layout in the area.

C55 (Pt 2) 23/03/2006 Includes 135 places into the heritage overlay and deletes 58

places from the interim heritage overlay.

C55 (Pt 1) 23/03/2006 Include 154 heritage places where submissions have been successfully resolved.

C57 12/08/2004 Amends the Table to the Schedule to Clause 52.03 and table to

the Schedule to Clause 81 to incorporate a document relating to the Craigieburn railway electrification known as "Craigieburn Rail Project Planning Controls( 20 May 2004 ) into the Scheme.

C58 12/05/2005 Updates statistics and references in the Hume Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) to reflect demographics and characteristics of Hume City in 2004. It also proposes to improve the legibility and presentation of a number of maps within the Hume MSS.

C60 08/06/2006 Rezones part of the former Red Rock Primary School site at 340 Settlement Road Sunbury from a Public Use 2 (Education) to a Green Wedge Zone to allow the entire site to be one consistent zone.

C61 22/12/2005 Apply a Public Acquisition Overlay over land adjacent to an existing Public Acquisition Overlay along the eastern side of Mickleham Road, to provide for future duplication between Alanbrae Terrace, Attwood and Barrymore Road, Greenvale.

C62 15/09/2005 Rezone part of land at 275 Hume Highway Craigieburn from Urban Floodway to Industrial 3 and rezone land from Industrial 3 to Urban Floodway to provide for the retarding basin/spillway as part of the drainage works to be carried out on the site.

C63 26/04/2006 Authorisation No. A0179 Rezone the former Craigieburn Primary School site in Hamilton Street, Craigieburn from Public Use Zone 2 - Education to Residential 1 Zone to enable the site to be developed for residential purposes.

C64 01/06/2006 Authorisation no. A0182 Rezone the south-west corner of 300 Hume Highway, Craigieburn, Crown Portion 15, Parish of Yuroke from Urban Floodway to Industrial 3 to enable the site to be developed for industrial purposes.

C65 30/11/2006 Authorisation No. A0143 Remove a restrictive covenant contained in Instrument of Transfer No. 1291761 on 1 Eldon Street, Broadmeadows to allow the development of the land for a place of assembly (reception centre).

C66 28/11/2005 Changes the location of the Urban Growth Boundary to allow for future urban growth and applies the Farming Zone to land previously zoned Green Wedge now within the Urban Growth Boundary.

C67 17/11/2005 Introduces the Business 5 Zone ordinance into the Hume Planning Scheme.

C68 25/05/2006 Authorisation No. A0221 Rezone land at the rear of 46 Glencairn Drive Greenvale, described as lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 530027X from Public Use Zone 1 to Residential 1.

C70 15/06/2006 Authorisation No. A0197 Update a number of statistics, references and descriptions with the Hume Municipal Strategic Statement and removes reference to actions which have been completed. Also updates Broadmeadows District Centre Local Policy to reflect Melbourne 2030: Planning for Sustainable Growth activity centre classifications and the completion of the Broadmeadows Transit City Masterplan in 2005.

C71 08/05/2008 Authorisation No. A0283 Delete part of Public Acquisition Overlay 2 (PAO2) on the southern side of Mt Ridley Road, Craigieburn between the alignment of the E14 and the Hume Freeway and deletes part of Public Acquisition Overlay 1 (PAO1) on the western side of the Hume Freeway from Mt Ridley Road extending south approximately 900 metres.

C72 15/11/2007 Authorisation No A287 Rezone lots 1 to 4 LP1294710, 1040-1090 Mickleham Road, Greenvale from Rural to Residential 1 to enable the site to be developed for residential purposes.

C73 02/11/2006 Authorisation NO A284 Rezone part of land at 2-10 Anderson Road, Sunbury known as part of lot 2 on plan of subdivision 508449V from Industrial 3 to Residential 1 and to introduce an Environmental Audit Overlay.

C75 02/10/2008 Authorisation No A433 Rezone part of land known as Greenvale Lakes East, Somerton Road, Roxburgh Park from part unzoned (Commonwealth) land and part Public Use Zone 1 to Comprehensive Development Zone 3, delete the Public Acquisition Overlay, apply the Environment Audit Overlay and Development Pan Overlay, and introduce Schedule 3 to the Comprehensive Development Zone and Schedule 22 to the Development Plan Overlay.

C76 23/02/2006 Corrects anomaly that exists in Clause 22.13 - Residential

neighbourhood Character- Sunbury Local Policy.

C78 16/11/2006 Applies to areas inside the Urban Growth Boundary which are currently in a Rural Zone. The amendment includes the land in a Farming Zone. The Rural Zone is deleted from the Planning Scheme.

C79 15/11/2007 Authorisation No A411 Rezone land, apply two Design and Development Overlays, amend the Municipal Strategic Statement and introduce a new local policy that affects land along Horne Street and Gap Road, Sunbury.

C81 07/06/2007 Authorisation No A506 Updates the schedule to the Heritage Overlay, removes reference to the Gellibrand Hill quarry Precinct and Greenan Outbuilding at 820 Somerton Road, Greenvale.

C85 10/06/2009 Authorisation No A568 Introduce the Dallas Broadmeadows

Urban Design Guidelines into the planning scheme by inserting a new local planning policy, amending the Municipal Strategic Statement, and rezoning land bounded by Barry Road, the Upfield railway line, Riggall Road and Pascoe Vale Road known as the Dallas Precinct and the Broadmeadows Precinct bounded by Pascoe Vale Road, the southern edge of the Broadmeadows industrial area and the Western Ring Road from Residential 1 to Residential 2 with an associated schedule.

C87 09/08/2007 Authorisation No A586 Delete part of the Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO1) from land at the south-west corner of Grand Boulevard and the Hume Highway, Craigieburn and part of PAO1 on the western side of Mount Ridley Road Connection, Craigieburn .

C88 08/05/2008 Authorisation No A654 Rezone 13 Fawkner Street and 6 Bent Street Westmeadows to Business 1 and Design and Development Overlay to facilitate the expansion of the existing Westmeadows Neighbourhood Activity Centre.

C90(SPLIT) 02/12/2008 Authorisation No A620 Insert Public Acquisition Overlays identifying land to be reserved for access restoration works associated with the Hume Highway/Freeway to fully access controlled freeway status and to exempt Vicroads from various planning permit requirements.

C91 29/11/2007 Authorisation No A704 Rezone Lot 2 on plan of subdivision PS504561Y in Pascoe Vale Road, Coolaroo from Special Use Zone, Schedule 3 (Pascoe Vale Precinct) to part Business 4 and part Business 3, amend Clauses 21.03-1 and 22.12 to remove reference to the Special Use Zone and amend the Schedule to the Business 4 Zone.

C92 06/03/2008 Authorisation No A751 Rezone part of the land known as Kalkallo Park from Farming-Schedule 1 to Comprehensive Development Zone (Schedule 2) and incorporate the Merrifield Comprehensive Development Plan within the schedule of Incorporated Documents.

C93 07/05/2009 Authorisation No A965 Rezones 103-121, 127, 129, 131 and 131B Western Avenue, Westmeadows to Business 3 Zone and amends subclause 21.03-5 of the Municipal Strategic Statement.

C94 24/05/2007 Removes the Public Acquisition Overlay from Lots 1 and 2 Barbiston Road Tullamarine.

C95 28/06/2007 Introduce a new Schedule to Clause 52.03 (Specific Sites and Exclusions) to identified land for future runway development at the Melbourne Airport. Modify the Schedule to Clause 66.04 to include the Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure as a referral authority under Schedule 1 to the IPO. Modify the Schedule to Clause 81 to include the Melbourne Airport-Future Runway Development Plan, May 2007 in the planning scheme.

C96 21/02/2008 Implement Section 48 Heritage Act

C97 12/06/2008 Authorisation No A803 Rezone land at 700 Hume Highway, Craigieburn from a Farming Zone Schedule 1 to Business 3 Zone and applying a Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16 and an Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 8 over parts of the land.

C98 11/12/2008 Authorisation No A855 Rezones 135-285 Donnybrook Road, Mickleham from Farming 1 Zone to part Business 3 Zone, part Business 1 Zone and part Public Conservation and Resource Zone. Amends the schedule to the Business 1 Zone, introduces schedule 17 to the Development Plan Overlay, amends the extent of area affected by HO260, deletes the Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 5, replaces the schedule to Clause 52.16 and Clause 81.01 with new schedules to include the "Folkestone Native Vegetation Precinct Plan".

C099 13/09/2007 More accurately describes the subject land referred to in the Melbourne Airport Future Runway Development Plan, May 2007

C100 12/03/2009 Authorisation No A976 Amend Clause 21.02 of the Municipal Strategic Statement to include reference to gaming, introduce a new Gaming Policy at Clause 22.17, amend the schedules to the

Gaming Provision and incorporate the Hume City Council Prohibited Gaming Areas document to Clause 81.01.

C101 30/10/2008 Authorisation No A880 Facilitate the expansion of the Roxburgh Park Shopping Centre by increasing the maximum combined leasable floor area for shop in the schedule to the Business 1 Zone, delete the existing DPO7 from the site and introduce a new DPO18 over the site.

C102 22/05/2008 Authorisation No A922 Rezone Commonwealth Land within Greenvale Lakes East to a Residential 1 Zone to accommodate the establishment of a catholic school (Kolbe Catholic College) and introduce the Development Plan Overlay Schedule 19 (DPO19) over the site.

C103 06/03/2008 Amend Clause 22.01 and Clause 22.07 in accordance with "Cutting Red Tape in Planning".

C104 06/03/2008 The Public Acquisition Overlay Schedule 1 is deleted from land generally bound by Fairways Boulevard, Craigieburn to the north and Coronet Avenue, Craigieburn to the south, described in Certificate of Title Volume 11010 Folio 990, Volume 11012 Folio 890, Volume 11012 Folio 070, Volume 11009 Folio 821, Volume 11011 Folio 018, Volume 11009 Folio 823 and Volume 11009 Folio 824 in accordance with Cutting Red Tape in Planning.

C105 07/08/2008 Rezone land at 810 Cooper Street, Somerton and 1 Cooper Street, Campbellfield. Rezone land at 810 Cooper Street, Somerton from part Public Use Zone 4 to Industrial 1 Zone and part of the Industrial 1 Zone to Public Park and Recreation Zone. Introduce the Development Plan Overlay 21 and delete the Environmental Significance Overlay to the site. Includes land to be zoned Public Park and Recreation Zoning an Environmental Audit Overlay and amend the schedule to Clause 52.17 to allow native vegetation removal without a permit. Rezone land at 1 Cooper Street, Campbellfield from part Public Conservation and Resource Zone to Farming Zone 3 and part Industrial 1 Zone to Public Conservation and Resource Zone.

C109 18/06/2009 Authorisation No. AO1303 Rectify anomalies in the maps and ordinance of the planning scheme affecting land in a number of locations that were identified during the triennial Municipal Strategic Statement review process.

C110 29/10/2009 Introduces a new Municipal Strategic Statement that is policy neutral because it does not alter any existing policy intent. It will replace the existing Municipal Strategic Statement with an edited and restructured version.

C112 02/04/2009 Rezones land north of Barry Road and east of Pascoe Vale Road, Coolaroo from Residential 1 Zone to the Public Use Zone Schedule 4 to facilitate the development of the new Coolaroo Railway Station.

C114 29/10/2009 Authorisation No. A01384 Incorporates the "15 Donnybrook Road, Mickleham Sky Sign - June 2009" Incorporated document into the scheme to enable a sign that is prohibited under the Urban Growth Zone to be erected and displayed.

C115 14/01/2010 Authorisation No A1422 Corrects the location of HO7 and HO374

on Map 22 HO and corrects details in the Schedule to HO7 and the Schedule to HO372.

C118 15/10/2009 Make the Minister for Planning the responsible authority for land at Pascoe Vale Road, Coolaroo described as lot 2 on Plan of Subdivision 504561Y to allow for the timely consideration of a planning permit application for a restricted retail and trade supplies development of the site.

C119 25/02/2010 Authorisation No A1217 Introduces Schedule 2 to the Urban Growth Zone and Development Contributions Plan Overlay to

land in the Greenvale North R1 PSP area and incorporates the Greenvale North R1 Precinct Structure Plan (including the Native Vegetation Precinct Plan) and the Development Contributions Plan.

Planning Scheme Amendments Currently Being Progressed by Council � C105 Salta Land. North of Cooper Street and adjacent to Merri Creek. Land

swap between Salta and Vic Roads. � C106 Mickleham Road, Greenvale. Removal of PAO to reflect recent

duplication of Mickleham Road, Greenvale. � C108 Melbourne Water Land at Blair Street, Dallas. Rezone part of site to

R1Z with schedules. � C111 630 & 650 Hume Highway rezoning from PUZ to BZ and various other

things � C113 Rezone part of the land at 290 Hume Highway, Craigieburn, from an

Urban Floodway Zone to an Industrial 3 Zone. � C123 Considering application for former Tullamarine Landfill Site � C124 Change to schedule of CDZ at Greenvale Lakes � C125 Lots 1572 and 1574 Malmsbury Dr, Meadow Heights rezone from

PUZ7 to R1Z � C127 182-200 Hume Highway, Somerton. Amendment is to make changes

to 52.03 and 81.01 and apply DPO � C128 27-35 Gap road and 62 Horne Street and part of the road reserve in

Pasley Street, Sunbury. Amendment seeks to rezone from B4Z to a MUZ

� C129 Brooklyn Court and Somerset Road, Campbellfield. Amendment seeks to rezone site from INZ3 to INZ1.

� C130 Greenvale Reservoir, the amendment seeks to introduce a ESO9. � C131 1-5 Northcorp Boulevard, Broadmeadows rezoning the site from B5Z

to B3Z � C134 Introduce a new Stormwater Management Local Policy. � C137 Rezone 36-44 Emu Parade, Jacana to facilitate the development of

land for 7 dwellings � C138 introduce policy in relation to the Hume Retail Strategy into Planning

Scheme. � C140 new Interim Telecommunications Conduit Local Planning Policy � C141 annomoly amendment to rezone 500 Mickleham Road, Attwood from

Commonwealth land to GWZ with an MEAO Planning Scheme Amendments Currently Being Progressed by State Government

� C116 GAA – North of Somerton Road and West of Mickleham Road. � C117 DoT – Sunbury Rail Electrification. � C119 GAA – R1 Precinct Structure Plan at Greenvale North � C120 GAA – R2 Precinct Structure Plan, Craigieburn � C121 GAA – R3 Precinct Structure Plan, Greenvale West. � C126 VicRoads – Incorporates small parcels of reserve land adjoining

Pascoe Vale Road & Barry Road, Broadmeadows, Coolaroo, Jacana & Meadow Heights to RDZ1

� C135 7 Macedon Street, Sunbury R1Z Rezone to PUZ3 and reduce extent of HO as a Section 20(4) amendment

� C136 Broadmeadows Primary School PUZ2 20(4) amendment to make the Planning Minister the Responsible Authority.

APPENDIX D – Further Work prior to C110 (2009)

A range of strategic issues is typically included in an MSS and many schemes include further strategic work or “supporting actions” at the end of the implementation section. This is a helpful inclusion as it provides the work program for the future arising out of the gaps which have emerged from the full consideration of each issue. The below matters were part of the Hume Planning Scheme prior to the approval of C110 (2009);

� Undertake the preparation of a Regional Housing Policy Statement that examines the housing issues and needs in this neighbourhood and gives direction about Council’s future role in addressing these issues.

� Implement the Industrial Precinct Enhancement Program, targeting the Hume Highway industrial corridor as a priority area.

� Continue to support the Merri Creek Management Committee and assist in implementing the recommendations of the Merri Creek Environment Strategy.

� Investigate future land use options for the Maygar Barracks should it become available for redevelopment.

� Continue to promote the strategic advantages of the neighbourhood as part of Council’s economic development activities.

� Implement the Industrial Precinct Enhancement Program, targeting the Hume Highway industrial corridor as a priority area.

� Continue to support the activities of the Moonee Ponds Creek Coordinating Committee.

� Undertake landscaping improvement and revegetation works along the Moonee Ponds Creek.

� Identify the most appropriate uses (excluding housing and other noise sensitive uses) for land located within the east-west flight path and apply a more definitive zoning as part of the first review of the planning scheme.

� Undertake a strategic review of the rural areas which has to date included the completion of:

o independent research into the market demand and supply of low density residential and rural living land in the City including separate analysis of differing markets within the City;

o land capability studies for all rural, rural living and low density residential land to determine appropriate rural uses and suitability or otherwise for subdivision,

o investigation of the changing agribusinesses trends and issues and challenges confronting rural land in the City,

� The above work undertaken provides a framework for the development of a Green Wedge Management Plan

� Until at least the first part of the strategic review of the rural areas is completed (independent research into market demand and supply), no rezonings that would add to the supply of low density residential land will be supported.

� Undertake further work, through a natural heritage strategy, to identify and document features of geological, geomorphological and topographical significance of the City, with a view to applying an appropriate planning control over these sites as part of a separate planning scheme amendment.

� Identify and document the significance of all waterways in the rural areas with a view to applying an Environmental Rural Zone or other appropriate planning control as part of a separate planning scheme amendment.

� Undertake landscaping improvements at The Nook and Sunbury Recreation Reserve.

� Undertake erosion works along Melba Creek.

� Undertake further investigations to establish the supply and demand of low-density residential zoned land in the City. Until investigations have been completed by Council which establish the need for additional low density residentially zoned land, no planning scheme amendment requests that propose to add to the current supply will be supported. These investigations will be undertaken as part of a broader strategic review of the rural areas which to date has included the completion of:

o independent research into the market demand and supply of low density residential and rural living land in the City including separate analysis of differing markets within the City;

o land capability studies for all rural, rural living and low density residential land to determine appropriate rural uses and suitability or otherwise for subdivision,

o investigation of the changing agribusinesses trends and issues and challenges confronting rural land in the City,

o The above work undertaken provides a framework for the development of a Green Wedge Management Plan

� Undertake further strategic work to document the environmental importance of Jacksons Creek and its environs with a view to extending the application of the Environmental Significance Overlay over the full length of the Creek.

Many of the matters included as “Other Actions” in the preC110 planning scheme have either been commissioned or completed. Any elements not yet done need to be prioritised as part of a future work program. Many of the actions were also non-land use related and were rightly removed from the Planning Scheme in October 2009 when C110 was gazetted.

APPENDIX E – Expert Panel Report from LPPF Project

REPORT OF EXPERT REVIEW OF PLANNING POLICY

HUME PLANNING SCHEME

November 2007

Background

Hume Council wrote to Planning Panels Victoria on 3 May 2007 , requesting

that the local policies of the Hume Planning Scheme be reviewed in context of

the recommendations of the “Cutting Red Tape in Planning”

recommendations, August 2006.

On 4 June 2007 Hume advised that it sought a review of the following

policies:

� 22.01 Industrial Local Policy,

� 22.07 Aged Accommodation Local Policy, and

� 22.09 Advertising Signs Local Policy.

The local policy review was undertaken by representatives of Hume Council,

the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE – now Department

of Planning and Community Development, DPCD) and Planning Panels

Victoria.

The review team included:

� Lester Townsend, Senior Panel Member, Planning Panels Victoria,

� Michael Holmes, Department of Planning and Community

Development, and

� Kim Giaquinta, Strategic Planner, Hume Council.

The review team met on a number of occasions.

Introduction

Council requested that the following policies be reviewed in relation to need,

effectiveness of implementation and clarification of wording:

� 22.01 Industrial Local Policy,

� 22.07 Aged Accommodation Local Policy, and

� 22.09 Advertising Signs Local Policy.

Discussion of each policy and issues relating to current and future use of the

policy is detailed below.

We recommend that the two of the policies be amended by way of a ‘fast

track’ process as the recommended changes are a plain English translation of

the existing policies that will not materially effect any owners or occupiers of

land.

Hume is currently reviewing its MSS and we recommend that changes to the

advertising policy be considered as part of this process.

Local Policy 22.01 – Industrial areas

The Policy is used on a regular basis by planning staff to guide development

in industrial areas. Providing employment in outer areas of Melbourne is

important to reduce social disadvantage and excessive commuting.

Encouraging a high quality of design in industrial areas and a coherent sense-

of-place will help these areas attract jobs, provided the requirements do not

add unwarranted costs to development. Some elements of the policy are quite

detailed and while the guidance might restrict individual choices in material

or site layout the restrictions are not onerous and are aimed generally at

achieving a sense of cohesion across the industrial area.

The policy assists in the delivery of consistent planning decisions in Hume.

There is always a tension in planning between certainty and flexibility. A

number of elements in the policy lean towards providing certainty at the

expense of flexibility. We think that in the context of the planning issues

confronting Hume a generally fair balance has been struck and the policies

assist in delivering a planning services, and note that these provisions are

already part of the scheme and are used regularly by the Hume planners in

decision making.

The current policy is structured by area, with policy guidance for each area

addressing a number of elements. This approach leads to:

� repetition, where similar guidance is provided for different areas, and

� uncertainty, where it is not clear that some guidance applies to all areas,

though there is no clear reason why it would not be relevant, and a

broader reading of the policy framework in the Hume Planning Scheme

indicates that the guidance should apply.

The policy has been redrafted under the various issues that require guidance.

Tables have been used to set out the different requirements for different areas

where needed.

Hume has informally adopted a range of parking requirements that it applies

to new industrial development. These rates are lower than the rates set out in

Clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme (The standard Clause for Car parking

requirements). There is good reason to include these rates in the revised

policy. Inclusion of these rates reduces the burden on applicants in justifying

a reduction in parking based on the local conditions identified by Hume.

These revised rates have the practical effect of reducing an excessive

requirement. The revised rates are based on an assessment of the real parking

requirements for developments in Hume.

The restructure and improvement in the language of the policy are a plain

English translation of the existing policies that will not materially effect any

owners or occupiers of land

Hume has detailed policy guidance about signage in Clause 22.09 and the

Review Committee has also considered this policy. As part of this

consideration it is proposed to introduce into the scheme current informal

guidance. This is discussed in the section of this report dealing with Clause

22.09. It is not recommended that the introduction of this informal guidance

into the scheme be fast tracked.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Clause 22.01 be amended as attached.

2. The revised Clause 22.01 be introduced by a ‘fast track’ process without

highlighted provisions relating to signs.

3. The revised signage provisions be introduced as part of the MSS review.

Local Policy 22.07 – Aged Accommodation

This policy can be improved with minor changes to language. These changes

do not warrant notice and should be fast tracked.

Hume has under taken strategic planning work looking at aging issues and

this work is reported in its report Healthy Aging in Hume (2007). We have

reviewed this report and identified a number of strategies that could be

included in the planning scheme to implement the strategic directions

identified in the report,. These are:

� Support the provision of affordable housing for older persons

� Support additional aged care management services to establish services.

� Support day therapy centres and allied health services for the aged.

� Support residential aged care that includes places for financially and

socially disadvantaged residents, and with the capacity for respite and

short stay options.

� Ensure social infrastructure meets the needs of older community

members.

� Support the establishment of a Cognitive, Dementia and Memory

service.

� Support the establishment of community facilities targeted at an ageing

population.

These strategies would be best included in a revised MSS – they are too broad

for inclusion in a local policy.

RECOMMENDATIONS

4. Clause 22.07 be amended as attached.

5. The revised Clause 22.07 be introduced by a ‘fast track’ process.

6. The revised Hume MSS include the following strategies:

� Support the provision of affordable housing for older persons.

� Support additional aged care management services to establish

services.

� Support day therapy centres and allied health services for the aged.

� Support residential aged care that includes places for financially and

socially disadvantaged residents, and with the capacity for respite

and short stay options.

� Ensure social infrastructure meets the needs of older community

members.

� Support the establishment of a Cognitive, Dementia and Memory

service.

� Support the establishment of community facilities targeted at an

ageing population.

Local Policy 22.09 – Advertising signs

The language and structure of the existing policy has been clarified.

New content has been added based on informal policies that currently operate

that deals with sign size for commercial and industrial development and signs

that promote new subdivisions.

SIGN SIZE

Informal guidance used by Hume sets limits on commercial and industrial

signage. These limits relate sign size to building frontage.

From a ‘streamlining’ point of view it is appropriate that this guidance be

included in the planning scheme. We don’t think it is practical to reach a

conclusion that such guidance is not necessary when it is being used on a

regular basis. The guidance does not contradict the broader requirements of

the VPP.

We think that the guidance should be included in the policy, but that an

opportunity should be given for submissions around the precise detail of the

policy.

The size limits also cover industrial premises. Ultimately this guidance would

be best included in Clause 22.01.

PROMOTION SIGNS FOR NEW SUBDIVISIONS

The existing policy has guidance for promotion signs for new subdivisions

where the sign is not located on the land being subdivided. Hume has an

informal policy that also covers such signs when located on the land being

subdivided.

We think that guidance on these signs should be included in the scheme as it

provides a clear set of ‘ground rules’ and provides for consistency in decision

making. There is potentially a wide range of responses to signs that promote

new subdivisions. On the one hand the essentially temporary nature of the

signs might lead to an unrestricted approach. On the other the potential of the

signs to impact on the (still) rural areas or on the entrances to new estates

might lead to a restrictive approach. In the absence of some guidance

planning decisions will potentially vary between decision makers.

CAN THESE CHANGES BE FAST TRACKED?

While it is appropriate to introduce the now informal guidance into the

scheme, we think that this should not be done without notice and potentially

submissions about the new guidance. We stress that we think that it is useful

for the scheme to include such guidance, but consider that an opportunity

should be given for submission on the precise details of the policy.

We note that here is currently a review of advertising controls within the VPP.

We think that the redrafting of the Hume policy will assist Hume in

translating any policy guidance to a revised approach, and the current review

should not be seen as a reason to delay this work.

Hume has indicated that if the changes are to be advertised it would seek to

do this as part of its MSS review.

RECOMMENDATIONS

7. Clause 22.09 be amended as attached.

8. The revised Clause 22.09 be introduced as part of the MSS review.

APPENDIX F – AECOM Consultation Report 2010

Hume City Council

1 September 2010

Hume Planning SchemeReview Consultation Report

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

D R A F T

1 September 2010

Hume Planning Scheme Review Consultation Report

Prepared for

Hume City Council

Prepared by AECOM Australia Pty Ltd Level 9, 8 Exhibition Street, Melbourne VIC 3000, Australia T +61 3 9653 1234 F +61 3 9654 7117 www.aecom.com ABN 20 093 846 925

1 September 2010

© AECOM Australia Pty Ltd 2010

The information contained in this document produced by AECOM Australia Pty Ltd is solely for the use of the Client identified on the cover sheet for the purpose for which it has been prepared and AECOM Australia Pty Ltd undertakes no duty to or accepts any responsibility to any third party who may rely upon this document.

All rights reserved. No section or element of this document may be removed from this document, reproduced, electronically stored or transmitted in any form without the written permission of AECOM Australia Pty Ltd.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010

Table of Contents 1.0  Introduction 1 

1.1  Background 1 1.2  Purpose 1 1.3  Methodology 2 

2.0  Consultation 3 2.1  Council Staff 3 

2.1.1  Workshops 3 2.1.2  Interviews 3 

2.2  Online Survey 4 2.3  Stakeholder Submissions 6 2.4  Other Submissions 7 

3.0  Key Issues and Recommendations 8 3.1  Key Issues 8 

3.1.1  Vision for the municipality 8 3.1.2  Environmental Management, Sustainability and Climate Change 8 3.1.3  Managing Growth 9 3.1.4  Activity Centres 10 3.1.5  Economic 10 3.1.6  Transportation 10 3.1.7  Social Needs and Community Safety 11 3.1.8  Built environment 11 3.1.9  Strategic work program 11 

3.2  Recommendations 12 3.2.1  Local Planning Policy Framework 12 3.2.2  Planning Scheme Controls 12 3.2.3  New strategic work 12 3.2.4  Key documents 13 3.2.5  Structural elements 14 3.2.6  Redundant/duplicated matters 14 3.2.7  Monitoring, review and operational processes 14 3.2.8  Data collection to inform the next review 14 

3.3  Issues, recommendations and implications 15 Appendix A A Appendix B B Appendix C C 

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background Hume City Council (Council) is currently undertaking a review of the Hume Planning Scheme. Section 12B of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 requires Council to regularly review its planning scheme. Councils are required to undertake this review every four years. Over the last ten years there have been several reviews of the Hume Planning Scheme as identified in Table 1. Table 1 Previous Hume Planning Scheme Reviews

Amendment No. Date Gazetted Review Outcomes Amendment C58 May 2005 This review resulted in some changes to the Local Planning Policy

Framework. However, it was recognised at the time that this review failed to address some of the recognised shortcomings with the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS).

Amendment C70 June 2006 The review was very limited. It updated the planning scheme to reflect a number of completed projects, as well as revised statistics and references. Several structure plan maps were also updated to reflect new classifications to activity centres to ensure that the MSS conformed to Melbourne 2030 policy directions.

Amendment C110 October 2009 The purpose of the amendment was to streamline existing policy statements, to modernise the MSS structure, make the MSS clearer and more useable - aligning the MSS with best practice models. This ensured that the MSS is generally in accordance with the DPCD Practice Note Format of Municipal Strategic Statements. This review however was policy neutral.

As detailed above, the previous reviews of the Hume Planning Scheme have been limited in the extent to which they have updated the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF). As a result, much of the current content of the LPPF is based on policy work undertaken more than 10 years ago. It is widely recognised within Council that a comprehensive review of the LPPF is required. This review also needs to be undertaken in light of current State Government planning policies and the current status of urban growth within the municipality.

1.2 Purpose AECOM was engaged by Council to facilitate consultation with Council staff and review submissions received from the community, Council staff and key stakeholders. The purpose of the consultation was to identify issues relating to the performance of the Hume Planning Scheme.

This report provides an overview of the consultation with Council staff, identifies the key issues raised and provides recommendations to address these issues. An implementation plan has also been prepared which summarises the issues, provides comment, and which identifies future actions and priorities to address these issues. This work will be used by the Strategic Planning Unit of Council to inform the review and the rewriting of the MSS.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 2

1.3 Methodology The tasks undertaken prior to the preparation of this report include:

• Inception meeting with Hume City Council officers • Consultation, which comprised:

- A workshop with Council strategic and statutory planning staff - A workshop with key Council non-planning staff - An interview with Council’s Statutory Planning Manager

• Review of responses to an online survey placed on Council’s website which was used to capture input from stakeholders and the wider community

• Review of exit interview information undertaken by Council • Provision of comment and recommendations to address issues raised during the consultation • Preparation of an implementation plan to identify future actions and priorities.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 3

2.0 Consultation

2.1 Council Staff 2.1.1 Workshops

Two workshops were facilitated by AECOM at Council’s offices on 25 March 2010 to receive comments from Council staff regarding the effectiveness of the Hume Planning Scheme.

Workshop One was attended by eight strategic planners and two statutory planners. Workshop Two was attended by a range of non-planning staff representing areas including:

• City Infrastructure • City Communities • Economic Development • Transit Cities • Urban Design • Landscape • Environment. Both workshops were well attended.

A summary of the key issues raised in the workshops is provided in Appendices A and B, and Section 3.0 of this report. Written feedback on the operation of the Hume Planning Scheme was also received from several participants following the workshops.

Participants were also encouraged to complete an online survey for the planning scheme review to add any further comments.

2.1.2 Interviews

An interview was conducted with Hume’s Manager of Statutory Planning on 19 April 2010. This interview covered a range of issues relating to the content of the Hume Planning Scheme and its operational effectiveness. The key issues raised during this interview are discussed in Section 3.0 of this report.

Council’s Project Manager of the planning scheme review conducted exit interviews with relevant Council staff prior to their departure from the organisation between October 2009 and April 2010. Eight staff members who have now departed Council were interviewed between October 2009 and 30 April 2010, including staff in the following roles:

• Sustainable Landscape Management Officer • Landscape Management Officer • Manager Leisure Services • Coordinator Sustainability • Manager Sustainable Environment • Conservation Planner – Sustainable Environment. The Project Manager also interviewed staff who were unable to attend the workshop sessions on the 25 March 2010.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 4

2.2 Online Survey An online survey was prepared by Council and was accessible from Council’s website from 23 March 2010 to 15 April 2010. The survey invited Council staff as well as the wider community to provide feedback on the Hume Planning Scheme.

Survey questions were designed to enable respondents to identify key trends and planning issues affecting the municipality and provide comments on the performance of the planning scheme.

Questions included in the survey addressed such topics as:

• how important is the planning scheme in decision making and policy setting • how useful are various parts of the planning scheme (including all LPPs) and to what degree does the

planning scheme require improvement The survey questions and results are provided in Appendix C of this report.

An overview of the makeup of the survey respondents and the views they expressed in the survey is provided below. A discussion of the specific issues identified, including recommendations on how to respond to these issues through the planning scheme is provided in Section 3 of this Report.

The online survey was completed by 162 people. Of these people, 85.5% were Council employees. Of these employees, there were responses from a range of departments with the largest number of responses from the following departments:

• Family and Children’s Services – 9.9% • Learning Community – 6.2% • Services – 6.2% • Aged Care and Health – 5.6% • Leisure and Youth Services – 4.9% • Statutory Planning – 3.7% • Strategic Planning – 3.7%. A high proportion of survey questions were skipped by respondents, with many questions being answered by less than forty people. Fifty percent (50%) of survey respondents have used the Hume Planning Scheme in the past, whilst fifty percent (50%) of survey respondents have never used it.

Nearly thirty-seven percent (36.7%) of Council staff identified the Hume Planning Scheme as important to them and forty-three percent (43.3%) stated that it is of vital importance (refer Figure 1). Forty percent (40%) of Council staff felt the Hume Planning Scheme is important to their decision making.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 5

Figure 1 How important is the Hume Planning Scheme to Council staff

The majority of respondents considered all of the Hume Planning Scheme to be very useful or vital. Refer to Table 2. This question was answered by 38 people, of which 79% were Council employees. Table 2 How useful are parts of the Hume Planning Scheme

Level of usefulness MSS LPP Zones Overlays Other

provisions Of no use 5.6% 2.8% 8.3% 14.3% 14.3%

Somewhat useful 38.9% 30.6% 8.3% 11.4% 28.6%

Very useful 38.9% 41.7% 44.4% 40.0% 40.0%

Vital 16.7% 25.0%0 38.9% 34.3%

17.1%

Users particularly identified the need for significant improvement to the MSS (as identified by 45.5% of survey responses) as shown in Table 3. A significant proportion of respondents also identified the need for improvements to the LPPs, zones and overlays. Table 3 Improvement required to components of the Hume Planning Scheme

Improvements required MSS LPP Zones Overlays

Significant improvements required

45.5% 35.5% 23.3% 17.2%

Some improvement required

36.4% 54.8% 56.7% 58.6%

No improvement required

18.2% 9.7% 20.0% 24.1%

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 6

2.3 Stakeholder Submissions Key stakeholders were also invited to comment on the effectiveness of the Hume Planning Scheme. The following stakeholders were invited to make a submission:

Government

• Department of Primary Industries

• Minister for Environment and Climate Change

• Minister for Agriculture

• Minister for Energy and Resources

• Department of Transport

• Department of Innovation Industry and Regional Development

• Department of Sustainability and Environment, Port Philip

• Heritage Victoria

• Growth Areas Authority

• VicTrack

• Environmental Protection Authority, Victoria

• VicRoads – MNW

• Aboriginal Affairs Victoria

• Port Phillip & Western Port Catchment Management Authority

• Sustainability Victoria

Developers

• MAB Corporation Pty Ltd

• Colonial First State

• Lend Lease

• Peet Ltd

• Ingram Property Group

• Stockland

• Villawood

• Urban Pacific

• VicUrban

Consultants

• Tract Consultants Pty Ltd

• Zagami Town Planning

• Contour Consultants Aust Pty Ltd

• Tenix Maintenance Services

• Urbis

Servicing Authorities

• Yarra Valley Water

• Western Water

• Telstra (Metro)

• Melbourne Water

• SP-AusNet Electricity

• SPI PowerNet

• City West Water

• Jemena Electricity Networks (Vic) Ltd

• Southern Rural Water

• CFA Region 14

Environmental/Interest Groups

• Craigieburn Historical Interest Group

• Merri Creek Management Committee

• Moonee Ponds Creek Co-ordination Committee

• Friends of Emu Bottom Wetlands Reserve Inc.

• Bulla Hill Live Steam Society

• Friends of Woodlands Historic Park

• Trust for nature, Victoria.

• Sustainable Energy Authority, Victoria

• The Amphibian Research Centre

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 7

Organisations

• Sunbury Traders Association

• Sunbury Chamber of Commerce

• Greenvale Progress Association

• Broadmeadows Progress Association

• Craigieburn Community Advisory Committee

• CSIRO Business

Community/Health Services

• Djerriwarrh Employment and Education Services

• Sunbury Community Health Centre Inc

• Dianella Community Health

Business

• Melbourne Airport

Hume City Council received submissions from the following organisations:

• Department of Sustainability and Environment • Merri Creek Management Committee • Lend Lease • Merrifield Corporation • MAB Corporation • Melbourne Airport.

A summary of the issues raised in these submissions is provided in Section 3.1 of this report. Details of each matter raised by these stakeholders are provided in Section 3.3, tables 4 – 14.

2.4 Other Submissions A number of other submissions were received from Council staff and Councillors. Details of each matter raised in these submissions are provided in Section 3.3, tables 4 – 14.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 8

3.0 Key Issues and Recommendations

3.1 Key Issues A diverse range of issues that should be addressed in the current review of the Hume Planning Scheme were identified during the consultation. These key issues are discussed below and are categorised into a number of themes.

3.1.1 Vision for the municipality

It was evident from the consultation that the vision for Hume needs to updated and it needs to be clearly defined. In particular it was noted that there had been many significant changes to the factors influencing growth in Hume, ranging from market conditions to new State government planning policies and standards. These matters were often raised during the consultation processes.

The Vision for the municipality also needs to be revised to ensure better alignment and consistency with the Council Plan, the Public Health & Wellbeing Plan and other key Council policies and strategies.

As part of the vision for the municipality it was frequently suggested that the Strategic Framework Plans in the MSS need to be updated to accurately reflect existing and future land uses (including the retail hierarchy).

3.1.2 Environmental Management, Sustainability and Climate Change

Issues relating to sustainability were highlighted throughout the consultation process. Matters raised included:

• Renewable energy • Water tanks • Sustainable and sensitive management of storm water (for example requiring Water Sensitive Urban

Design) • Recycled water use • Waste and recycling management (including waste management practices on construction sites) • Greenhouse gas emissions • Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) and higher standards for sustainable housing and development. It was identified that infrastructure should also be developed in a sustainable manner taking into consideration a longer design life.

There were also a number of climate change matters identified during the consultation. It was suggested that the MSS should recognise the importance of promoting land use and development that is resilient to climate change impacts (for example, encouraging design solutions that minimise the urban heat island effect and manage the likelihood of increased storm events). The impacts of drought also need to be recognised. It was identified that the climate change policy in the SPPF needs to be strengthened.

A broad range of environmental matters were raised during the consultation. One of the key issues was the protection of native vegetation and waterways. This appeared to be due to the increased development pressures within the municipality and a perceived lack of sufficient direction in regard to Council’s objectives regarding native vegetation and waterways. Participants suggested a range of changes to the planning scheme, including a review of the Environmental Significance Overlays (ESO) and Vegetation Protection Overlays (VPO) across the municipality, changes to the schedules of the ESOs and the development of a local planning policy that reinforces the protection of native vegetation.

Respondents also identified the need to protected fauna and fauna habitats as well as native vegetation. It was suggested that the MSS (i.e. Clause 21.05) should recognise the significant flora and fauna in Hume and have references to the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1998 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 9

Another environmental issue that was identified by a number of respondents are the somewhat interrelated issues of storm water management, landscaping, waterway pollution and rural land management (including erosion, weed and pest animal control and ground water extraction). Respondents felt that these matters need to be more effectively addressed in the planning scheme.

There were a range of environment related documents suggested throughout the consultation process that should be reviewed or introduced into the Hume Planning Scheme as reference documents including Development Guidelines for the Merri Creek.

The comments relating to these issues predominantly related to the LPPF. Respondents identified the need to provide a better frame of reference in the relevant local sections of the planning scheme (from high level policy to matters of detail) regarding Council’s expectation of the role that new development plays in delivering more sustainable development outcomes. Respondents identified that an overarching policy on these issues would inform, influence and most likely support policies on land use, transportation and such, as well as providing specific direction for particular policy issues such as biodiversity and sustainable design.

3.1.3 Managing Growth

A significant number of respondents expressed the view that greater guidance needs to be provided for greenfield and infill growth areas across the residential, retail, commercial, industrial and agricultural sectors. These matters all need to be considered in context of current State Government policy such as Melbourne @ 5 million which provides policy initiatives that are complementary to the directions of Melbourne 2030.

Respondents identified that recent information and policy initiatives undertaken by Council should be incorporated into the scheme as part of this scheme review (such as the draft Hume Retail Strategy), however in other policy areas it was recognised by respondents that additional research is needed for Council to be able to provide a sound basis for a policy position.

Specifically it was suggested that:

• There is a need to better understand future housing needs and trends, and to provide the basis for Council to introduce policy statements into the planning scheme on matters ranging from the extent and type of new residential development in Council’s existing established urban areas to policies on affordable housing.

• There is a need for a population strategy to project how many people will be living in Hume and where. • Clarification is required regarding future directions for industrial and agricultural land uses. A number of respondents identified the need to update plans such as the Hume Strategic Framework Plans in Clause 21.01 to reflect the current urban growth boundary and identify future growth areas.

The infrastructure needs of the municipality, including timing, responsibility and funding sources were also raised during the consultation. It was also suggested that Hume needs a transport strategy that links employment nodes, residential areas and provides for regional linkages.

An interesting issue raised in consultation was the need for the planning scheme to better recognise the municipality as a part of a larger region within the State by containing policy statements specific to the region in which the municipality is located. It was suggested that there could be a regional planning layer that sits between the SPPF and the LPPF. It is considered that there is some merit in this suggestion, however this approach needs further development before discussion with DPCD and neighbouring Councils.

A further issue identified was whether a similar approach should be taken within the LPPF. That is, can or should the MSS contain policy statements that guide land use within distinct sub-regions / precincts within Hume. Respondents recognised however that this approach requires further development and consideration before progressing further.

Consideration also needs to be given to providing guidance on the location of a number of specific land uses, including places of worship/assembly, licensed premises and non-residential uses in residential zones.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 10

3.1.4 Activity Centres

From the consultation it is evident that activity centres need to be managed more strategically and require more direction from Council. Planning for these activity centres needs to incorporate key directions from Council’s economic and (draft) retail strategies and identify the hierarchy of activity centres within Hume and the various roles of centres, including the role of Melbourne Airport as a specialised activity centre. Structure planning is required in the higher order activity centres to help define these roles.

Development guidelines need to be included in the LPPF, particularly for lower order activity centres in order to provide better direction for the nature and form of development within these areas. In particular, guidance to deliver better urban design outcomes is sought.

3.1.5 Economic

Respondents identified the need for the drivers of Hume’s economy to be clearly reinforced and supported in the MSS. These drivers include retail, industry, agriculture and housing, but also specific uses such as Melbourne Airport, which is the most significant commercial facility in the municipality.

It was suggested that there is potential for Melbourne Airport to attract significantly more aeronautical and aviation related businesses, as well as an aviation training academy which is currently being investigated by the Victorian Government (Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development). It was evident from the consultation that the planning scheme needs to carefully consider the needs of Melbourne Airport.

Council’s Economic Development Department is also keen to see more tourism related activities across the municipality and more accommodation to support tourism regionally.

It was also suggested that the proposed Donnybrook Intermodal Freight Terminal (as identified in the State Government’s Freight Futures) should be recognised in the Hume Planning Scheme.

It was suggested by respondents that the MSS should refer to the impending roll out of the National Broadband Network and anticipate the opportunities/issues associated with this major Commonwealth Government initiative.

In Hume there have been efforts relating to community renewal and neighbourhood renewal projects, and ‘Place Management’ in Broadmeadows, Craigieburn and Sunbury. These projects should also be recognised in the planning scheme.

The key drivers of Council’s economy should be clearly articulated in its Economic Strategy and the key directions of this strategy reflected in the LPPF.

3.1.6 Transportation

During the consultation, transportation was identified as a matter that needs to be addressed more effectively in the planning scheme. Transportation was recognised as a critical contributor to the economic, social and environmental sustainability of the municipality.

Different modes of transport and alternatives to the car need to be encouraged to increase the equity of access to all members of the community to employment, activities and services, as well as promoting better health and well-being outcomes. These alternatives include public transport, walking and cycling in particular.

To effectively encourage people to use these modes of transportation the required infrastructure is needed as well as public transport with sufficient capacity, connectivity to meet people’s movement requirements and integration of these with key land uses. It was suggested that there should be a local policy in the planning scheme relating to sustainable modes of transportation.

It was identified that the planning scheme needs to consider the Victorian Transport Plan and what it means for Hume.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 11

3.1.7 Social Needs and Community Safety

There are a range of social issues facing the municipality that were identified during the consultation. These include housing affordability, health, housing diversity, public housing, accessibility and liveability. There is a need for key or emerging social issues to be addressed in the LPPF (for example, through the introduction of a licensed premises policy or by encouraging walkability).

It was suggested during the consultation that the concept of liveability needs to be defined in the Hume Planning Scheme. Liveability should be considered differently in each municipality and can relate to a range of matters including access to transport, housing, infrastructure, access to services and education etc. It was noted in the consultation that the SPPF also needs to cover liveability and housing affordability more explicitly. Risk to people was also identified in the consultation as matter that is not covered in the SPPF (or the entire planning scheme). Risk should be covered in terms of safety, visibility and the like. The planning scheme should be amended to reflect key components of Council’s Public Health & Wellbeing Plan.

3.1.8 Built environment

Aspects of the built environment were raised, particularly in the Council workshops. It was indicated that the built environment need to be walkable, have a high level of amenity, surveillance for improved safety and active street frontages. For the built environment to be more walkable, it was suggested there needs to be a pleasant environment which has shade, street trees and rest points with seating. Furthermore the need for a reason for people to walk, i.e. to a particular destination or attraction was identified. When designing walkable environments the design principles need to consider the needs of all users.

It was indicated that the current urban design provisions in the planning scheme are too vague and discretionary and that it has been difficult to enforce good design principles/outcomes, such as interesting/active street frontages.

A clearly articulated Council policy on the form of growth, sustainability, transportation and social needs would provide the basis for more specific and defensible guidance on these built environment issues.

3.1.9 Strategic work program

Council has developed an extensive future strategic work program in response to Council Plan initiatives, other Council policies as they are adopted, and feedback from Planning Panels Victoria and the community. Council will need to prioritise the work in its strategic work plan to ensure that it does not over commit.

In 2009, Amendment C110 to the Hume Planning Scheme deleted the section that outlined the ‘further strategic work’ or ‘supporting actions’ at the end of the implementation section as Council thought it was unnecessary for the MSS to outline specific future work. Instead, a further work program and action plan will form part of the 12B Review. This will be incorporated into wider Council programs, such as the Council Plan.

During the consultation a diverse range of further strategic work was identified. This is outlined in Section 3.2.3.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 12

3.2 Recommendations From the feedback during the consultation processes, the following recommendations have been made in order to improve the Hume Planning Scheme in addition to the detailed consideration of issues and recommendations contained in Section 3.3, tables 4 to 14.

3.2.1 Local Planning Policy Framework

Recommended changes to the objectives and strategies of the LPPF are based on the key planning issues that were raised during the consultation. These are outlined in Section 3.3, Table 5.

3.2.2 Planning Scheme Controls

Section 3.3, Tables 6 to 8 provide responses to the recommendations made during the consultation for changes to the planning scheme controls. Key issues that need to be considered by Council include:

• A review of all planning scheme schedules. • The application of overlays across the municipality need to be reviewed to ensure the overlays have been

applied consistently, are still required and reflect the existing or desired future land use. • Investigate whether the number of Development Plan Overlays can be rationalised.

3.2.3 New strategic work

Gaps in strategic work

The consultation identified a number of gaps in the Hume Planning Scheme. These include:

• A long term vision for the municipality • A clear stance on environmental management, sustainability and climate change • The management of growth in greenfield and infill areas • An understanding of housing needs and trends • The management of activity centres • Support for the driver’s of Hume’s economy and promotion of new economic drivers • A transportation strategy that encourages alternative modes of transportation • Overall liveability within the municipality • Support for pleasant built environments.

New strategic work may be required to support future policy development or changes to the provisions of the planning scheme. The work that may be required includes the following:

• A housing strategy • A population policy and strategy • An employment and land use strategy • Ground truthing of DSE vegetation mapping • Sustainability and environmental policies including greenhouse gas emissions, waste management, potable

and stormwater / recycled water use, waterways and creeks, sustainable land management, ecologically sustainable development, earthworks and water pollution investigations.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 13

3.2.4 Key documents

Participants in the consultation for the Hume Planning Scheme Review identified key documents that should be reviewed or introduced into the planning scheme as part of this review as follows.

• Youth Services Framework and Strategy 2004-2007, Hume City Council (in particular the recommendations for dealing with youth service facilities in activity centres)

• Walking and Cycling Strategy (to be prepared). Review initial recommendations and policy positions that have been prepared. These could be incorporated into the MSS and LPP.

• Sustainable Land Management Policy (adopted 2008) • Sustainable Land Management Strategy 2010 – 2013 (2010), Hume City Council • Pest Animal Land Action Plan 2005-2007, Hume City Council • Hume City Council Industrial Stormwater Code of Practice (adopted) • Pathways to Sustainability: An Environmental Framework (adopted April 2009) and Pathways to

Sustainability: An Environmental Framework 2009 – 2013 Action Plans (2009) • Hume City Council Greenhouse Action Plan (adopted April 2009) • Hume Natural Heritage Strategy (2010 – when complete and adopted) • Hume City Council State of the Environment Report, 2007/2008 • Native Vegetation Offset Policy (Draft Nov 2009), Hume City Council • Hume Growth Area: Towards Melbourne 2030 Final Report (Hume Committee for Smart Growth DSE, 2005) • Port Phillip and Western Port Native Vegetation Plan (PPWCMA, 2006) • Securing Our Natural Future – A White Paper for Land and Biodiversity at a Time of Climate Change (DSE,

2009) • Hume City Retail Strategy (Sept 2009 – adopted 9 March 2010) • Retail Policy Discussion Paper (DPCD, October 2008) • Hume City Council Economic Development Strategy 2008-2012 (2008) • Hume Transport Strategy (Draft) • Merri Creek and Environs Strategy 2009-2014 (this should be listed in the references of Schedule 2 to the

ESO) • Understanding planning issues along the Merri Creek and Development Guidelines for the Merri Creek

(2004) (should be listed in the decision guidelines for ESO2 and in the references) (The Development Guidelines for the Merri Creek should also be adopted as a local policy)

• Upper Merri Biodiversity Network Plan (July 2009) • Hume Fauna Study 2004: The Vertebrate Fauna of Hume City Council (2004) • Hume Green Wedge: A Sustainable Lifestyle Landscape (2007) • Moonee Ponds Creek Strategic Plan (when completed and endorsed) • Hume Flora and Fauna Study (2010 – when complete and adopted) • Open Space Strategy 2010 – 2015 (when complete and adopted) • Hume City Council Stormwater Management Plan (2000).

The documents are likely to contain matters of relevance to the planning scheme and should be reviewed to determine whether they should be introduced into the planning scheme as a reference document or key principles reflected in the MSS.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 14

3.2.5 Structural elements

During the consultation there was limited feedback about the overall structure of the Hume Planning Scheme. However it was commonly recognised that the policies in the LPPF need to be written more concisely and repetition needs to be removed.

Council could review recently approved planning schemes and implement best practice initiatives, in particular the use of zones, overlays and schedules rather than the LPPF to control use and development, where appropriate.

3.2.6 Redundant/duplicated matters

In the consultation it was recognised there was duplication in the planning scheme and some local policies may be redundant, however no specific detail was provided on these matters. Where possible, land use direction could be provided through the MSS or the schedules to the zones and overlays for these areas and matters.

The online survey provided some insight into the usefulness of each of the local planning policies. Respondents indicated that the following policies were no longer useful:

• Pipeworks Fun Market Local Policy (Clause 22.03) (52.4% of respondents) • Aged Accommodation and Services Local Policy (Clause 22.07) – (52.4% of respondents) • Animal Boarding and Dog Breeding (Clause 22.08) – (61.9% of respondents) • Roxburgh Park Activity Centre – South of Somerton Road (Clause 22.12) – (52.4% of respondents) • Residential Neighbourhood Character – Tullamarine Local Policy (Clause 22.14) – (52.4% of respondents) • Gaming (Clause 22.17) – (54.5%.of respondents). Even though more than 50% of respondents did not find these policies useful, they may be required on a strategic level. These policies may be more useful to the Council’s planners than Council staff in other departments.

It is recommended that Council reviews each of these local planning policies for relevance.

3.2.7 Monitoring, review and operational processes

As part of Council’s monitoring and review process, a rolling review of the performance of the planning scheme has been taking place. Since the first planning scheme review in 2003, the monitoring and review processes preformed by Council include:

• Adoption of planning scheme amendments (2000 – 2010) • Current planning scheme amendments • Commissioning of further strategic work

• Development of an on-going strategic work program1. The monitoring and review process, as well as operation and process practices were not specifically raised as an issue during the consultation phase of the planning scheme review.

It is understood that the planning scheme review does not address any operational issues associated with development approvals and that this issue is being monitored by Council as part of other regular review processes.

3.2.8 Data collection to inform the next review

Further data to be collected to inform the next planning scheme review was not identified during the consultation process.

1 Source: Hume Planning Scheme, 12B Review, 17/05/10, p 20.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 15

3.3 Issues, recommendations and implications Tables 4 to 14 on the following pages identify the key issues raised in the consultation, including the workshops, Council staff interviews, online survey and stakeholders submissions. Recommendations and implementation measures are provided for each of the issues identified. The issues covered have been categorised to accord with each section of the planning scheme.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 16

Table 4 State Planning Policy Framework

State Planning Policy Framework Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendations

The SPPF is too general and has no clear direction.

Workshop 1 Agree. There are shortcomings in the SPPF and Council should continue to advocate improvements to the SPPF. This issue relates to a state standard provision that Council has no ability to modify.

When the opportunity arises, Council should participate in appropriate forums and participate in any future reviews.

A lot of polices in the SPPF are not used by or are relevant to Hume.

Workshop 1 Agree. There are shortcomings in the SPPF and Council should continue to advocate improvements to the SPPF. This issue relates to a state standard provision that Council has no ability to modify.

When the opportunity arises, Council should participate in appropriate forums and participate in any future reviews.

The SPPF needs to include a regional planning layer in addition to a State wide layer, as many issues apply to regions rather than municipalities or the whole State.

Workshop 1 Agree. There is some merit for a regional planning layer within the VPPs. This issue relates to a state standard provision that Council has no ability to modify.

When the opportunity arises, Council should participate in appropriate forums and participate in any future reviews.

Climate change policy needs to be strengthened.

Workshop 1 Agree. The SPPF needs to address other impacts associated with climate change other than sea level rise.

When the opportunity arises, Council should participate in appropriate forums and participate in any future reviews.

The SPPF does not cover risks to people (e.g. safety, visibility, surveillance).

Workshop 1 Agree. The SPPF could be strengthened to address these issues better.

When the opportunity arises, Council should participate in appropriate forums and participate in any future reviews.

The SPPF should require all development to be sustainable.

Workshop 1 Disagree. The SPPF already addresses the need for development to be sustainable. The gap is more likely to be present in local policies / provisions of the scheme and on the decision making processes.

When the opportunity arises, Council should participate in appropriate forums and participate in any future reviews.

The SPPF needs to cover liveability more explicitly e.g. affordability, housing, public transport.

Workshop 1 Agree. The SPPF could be improved to address liveability issues.

When the opportunity arises, Council should participate in appropriate forums and participate in any future reviews.

Advertising is not covered. Workshop 1 Disagree. Do not consider it necessary for advertising to be specifically addressed in the SPPF.

No action required.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 17

State Planning Policy Framework Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendations

The SPPF has limited coordination with other State Government policy.

Workshop 1 Disagree. Consider that there is already sufficient consistency with other State Government policy. Unclear as to which State Government policy this comment relates to.

No action required.

The SPFF should consider setting target based development requirements/standards (e.g. incorporating sustainable design into developments, affordable housing).

Workshop 1 Agree. Consideration should be given by the State Government to establishing target based development requirements with the SPPF.

When the opportunity arises, Council should participate in appropriate forums and participate in any future reviews.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 18

Table 5 Local Planning Policy Framework

Local Planning Policy Framework Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendation

Municipal Strategic Statement Update and articulate a clear vision for the municipality.

Online survey, Workshop 1

Agree. The current LPPF does not reflect the vision contained in Hume’s Council Plan 2009-2013. A key outcome of this scheme review should be to achieve consistency between the LPPF and Council Plan (Health and Wellbeing).

Ensure consistency between the Council Plan, Public Health and Wellbeing Plan and the LPPF including inserting the Hume Council Plan vision into the LPPF.

The MSS needs to be updated and needs direction on how Hume should deal with current issues and reflect recent changes in policy and emerging land use directions (e.g. activity centres, green wedge areas, fringe development/ urban expansion, current housing demand, increased housing density – including in new subdivisions).

Online survey, Workshop 1, 2

Agree. This review should include a review of the LPPF to ensure it covers current and future issues and recent changes in policy.

Review and update the LPPF where appropriate.

The MSS needs to provide clearer guidance on Activity Centres (e.g. the guidance on future development within Activity Centres, hierarchy of activity centres).

Online survey, Workshop 2

Agree. Improvements need to be made in the way that activity centres are addressed in the LPPF, including the need for a hierarchy.

Undertake an Activities Centre Strategy that explores these issues and at this time amend scheme accordingly.

There may also be a need for structure plans for individual activity centres and for lower order centres, urban design guidelines. This can be determined at the completion of the Activity Centre Strategy.

The MSS needs to be more concise with specific reference to the LPPs.

Online survey Agree. This planning scheme review should include a review of the structure of the LPPF with a view to minimising duplication and ensuring appropriate links between the MSS and LPPs and the use of clear concise language.

Review and update the LPPF where appropriate.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 19

Local Planning Policy Framework Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendation

Current Reference Documents should form part of the policies and not be used just for background research.

Online survey Agree. Reference documents should inform the content of the LPPF and be used in decision making.

Review and update the LPPF in light of current reference documents.

Mapping is outdated • Strategic Framework Plans require

significant review to reflect UGB shift and to accord with Precinct Structure Planning processes (pending completion).

Online survey Agree. All maps within the LPPF should be reviewed and updated.

Review and update maps where appropriate

Delete reference to the 2004 Retail Study to remove inconsistencies.

Online survey Agree. This should occur as part of the review of an amendment to introduce new Retail Strategy (2009) work. Note: This process is underway.

Review and update the LPPF where appropriate

Strengthen and elaborate on strategies that promote and address affordable housing (e.g. Clause 21.02-1).

Online survey Agree. This is a key issue that should be addressed in Hume’s LPPF.

Prepare a Housing Strategy that explores these issues where appropriate. Review and update the LPPF to highlight the importance of housing affordability where appropriate.

The MSS should be updated to reflect policy changes relating to Melbourne Airport, including reference to the MAEO (in place of the former Airport Environs Overlay).

Online survey Agree. The LPPF, Zones and Overlays should be reviewed to ensure the language is appropriate and consistent.

The discussion on the network of centres within the City of Hume should recognise and reflect the role of the Melbourne Airport Specialised Activity Centre within the network of local centres. Planning and development of land surrounding Melbourne Airport should support its role as a Specialised Activity Centre.

Online survey Agree. The best approach to this may be considered as part of the recommended retail hierarchy review.

Consider as part of a future Activity Centre Strategy, however there may be a need to undertake separate planning for the area dependent on the intended outcomes.

Prescribed airspace - the protection of the surrounding airspace from intrusions such as structures and chimney discharges is important and should be addressed in the planning scheme.

Online survey Disagree. This is an issue that needs to be addressed by the Federal and State Governments as a product of the National Aviation Policy Statement - the Aviation White Paper.

No action required.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 20

Local Planning Policy Framework Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendation

The MSS needs to refer to the drivers of the Hume economy.

Online survey Agree. The LPPF needs to better address the drivers of the local economy and have clearer links with the Hume Economic Development Strategy 2008-2012.

Update the LPPF to reflect Hume’s current economic strategy for Hume where appropriate.

If Hume wishes to incorporate more public transport / bike movement within future developments a local policy needs to provide this support.

Online survey Agree. This is an important consideration for the LPPF. Particularly in light of particular provisions which already address this issue (for example Clause 12.08 Better Transport Links and Clause 52.34 Bicycle Facilities).

The LPPF should reflect Council’s current views on public transport and bike movement where appropriate. These issues could also be addressed as part of an Integrated Transport Strategy.

There should be more objectives under each policy heading e.g. Clause 21.03 Economy.

Workshop 1 Agree. This review should consider the merits of the current objectives contained within the LPPF.

Review and update the LPPF where appropriate.

The MSS could define sub-regions / precincts within Hume.

Workshop 1, Workshop 2

Agree. It is recognised there are a range of distinct areas with Hume. Consideration should be given to defining the characteristics of the regions, current matters/issues and future vision.

Review and update the LPPF where appropriate.

The following matters should be recognised in the MSS: • Environmentally Sustainable Design • Urban Design • Renewable energy (and support to

guide decisions i.e. solar and wind) • Infrastructure review provisions with

regard to climate change.

Council staff interview

Agree. Consideration should be given to these issues in the LPPF where appropriate.

Hume’s position on environmental issues including these should be defined in the LPPF.

Review and update the LPPF where appropriate.

The MSS and LPPs need to facilitate sustainable practices, including: • Renewable and cogeneration

energy projects, and • Sustainable and sensitive

management of storm water.

DSE Agree. Consideration should be given to these issues in the LPPF.

Hume’s position on environmental issues including these should be defined in the LPPF.

Review and update the LPPF where appropriate.

The MSS should recognise the importance of promoting land use and development that is resilient to climate

DSE Agree. Consideration should be given to these issues in the LPPF.

Review and update the LPPF where appropriate.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 21

Local Planning Policy Framework Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendation

change impacts (e.g. encouraging design solutions that minimise the urban heat island effect and manage the likelihood of increased storm events).

Hume’s position on environmental issues including these should be defined in the LPPF.

Require local policies / requirements relating to: • Management of land filling (clean fill) • Provide head of power to Industrial

Stormwater Code of Practice • Higher levels of sustainable housing

and development • Better waste and recycling

management on construction sites • Require Water Sensitive Urban

Design in new developments.

Council staff interview

Agree. Consideration should be given to these issues in the LPPF.

Hume’s position on environmental issues including these should be defined in the LPPF.

Review and update the LPPF, zones and overlays to reflect these concerns where appropriate.

The MSS does not cover earthworks or waterway pollution.

Council staff interview

Any reflection of this issue in the planning scheme needs to have a strategic basis in a Council policy document. The Sustainable Environment department are currently working through these issues.

Review and update the LPPF where appropriate.

A Vegetation Offset Policy should be considered in the MSS.

Council staff interview

Disagree. The management of offsets is already addressed in the Victorian Native Vegetation Management Framework.

No action required.

Population and Housing

We need a Housing and Population Policy and Strategy to understand residential land use and to incorporate it into the MSS, which will identify:

• State government direction as it relates to the UBG

• How many people are likely to be living in Hume by (say 2030?)

• What is the mix between

Councillor submission

Agree. There needs to be a vision for urban growth within Hume, including population growth and infrastructure needs however it needs to have its strategic basis in other Council policy documents in the first instance (such as a Housing Strategy).

Review and update the LPPF where appropriate.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 22

Local Planning Policy Framework Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendation

established areas and growth areas, and where will we concentrate this growth. Broadmeadows and Craigieburn are the obvious places, but need to be specific, and consistent with State policy

• What neighbourhoods are to be identified and to incorporate their unique character for future planning decision making and direction

• What are the infrastructure needs, and how are we to determine timing and responsibility, and funding sources

Which links into council strategies to identify what services are required, who is to provide and when, for instance such activities include:

• Lifelong Learning • Training and education • Employment Human services, e.g. HACC, Children, Gaming controls, sport & recreation, etc. Employment

We need a clear employment land use strategy to incorporate into the MSS in order to identify:

• Retail siting and hierarchy, with

Councillor submission

Agree. There needs to be a defined employment land use strategy in the LPPF however it needs to have its strategic basis in other Council policy documents in the first instance. Hume’s transport strategy should encourage effective links between employment nodes, residential precincts and

Review and update the LPPF where appropriate.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 23

Local Planning Policy Framework Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendation

appropriate zoning • Industrial and Commercial

precincts, with appropriate zoning • Transport strategy to link

employment nodes with internal residential precincts and regional linkages

• Airport specific requirements.

regional linkages. The LPPF and MAEO already acknowledge and protect the interests of the Melbourne Airport.

Rural and Green Wedge

We need a clear non-urban land use strategy to incorporate into the MSS in order to identify:

• Sustainable rural enterprise land use, including opportunities for alternative land uses, linked to green wedge policy (see below)

• Areas of large block rural residential usage to act as an interface

• Upgraded mapping to identify key assets: land and water, flora & fauna incl. native vegetation, and other criteria

• Green Wedge policies, strategies and action plans to provide a clear long term direction for non-urban use, including matters relating to: - Erosion - Weed control - Pest animal control - Ground water extraction

Councillor submission

Agree. The role of rural land within the municipality needs to be recognised in the LPPF. Council will address matters such as erosion, weed control, pest animal control and ground water extraction in the green wedges through Green Wedge Management Plans once the UGB has been established. The State government’s White Paper could inform this policy approach, and the expression in the planning scheme could include mapping.

Review and update the LPPF where appropriate once Council has resolved its UGB/Green Wedge Management planning position.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 24

Local Planning Policy Framework Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendation

• Specific reference to government’s White Paper on land use and biodiversity, and the UGB & OMR outcomes.

Sustainability and Open Space

We need a clear land use strategy to ensure long term recreational and net gain outcomes, incorporating:

• Open space identified for recreational use by residents

• Public land conservation areas ‘no-go’ for net gain purposes

• Policies regarding private land net gain activities, linking to green wedge policy directions and deliverables

• Waste management and recycling land use activities

• Sustainability related policy and strategies for city, including: - Greenhouse gas emissions,

including power usage and alternative power generation (wind / photovoltaic, etc)

- Potable and stormwater / recycled water use

- Waterways and creeks - Greening and planting activity

priorities.

Councillor submission

Agree. Consideration should be given to these issues in the LPPF where appropriate however they need to have their strategic basis in other Council policy documents in the first instance.

Review and update the LPPF where appropriate.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 25

Local Planning Policy Framework Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendation

Municipal Profile (Clause 21.01) ‘The protection and sustainable use of agricultural land’ needs to be removed. This is no longer a key influence on the city.

Council staff interview

Disagree. There remains a significant area of rural zoned land within the municipality and the sustainable use of this land should remain a key objective.

No change required.

Clause 21.01-4 identifies Melbourne Airport as significant source of employment for residents in Hume. The figures of staff employed at the Airport are now out of date.

Online survey Agree. The LPPF should retain acknowledgement of the importance as its importance as an employer of residents in Hume, however figures of staff employed at the airport add limited value and are quickly outdated.

Remove figures from clause 21.01-4.

Clause 21.01-6 Hume Strategic Framework Plan – all Strategic Framework Plans need to be updated.

Council staff interview

Agree. Update figures in clause 21.01-6.

Review the Regional Context Map and Strategic Framework Plan to recognise the revised retail hierarchy.

Developer submission

Agree. Update figures and recognise retail hierarchy where appropriate.

Clause 21.01-4 Hume City Council Plan 2004-2008: Environmental Sustainability – all of the dot points need to be reviewed for currency and meaning. How is ‘sustainable land management practices’ defined? How is Council going to influence the built form to be more energy efficient and suitable for climate change impacts?

Council staff interview

Agree. A review of this clause should be undertaken to confirm that enough direction is provided in the scheme regarding sustainability.

It is noted that the LPPF is best informed by clearly articulated and researched Council endorsed policy/strategy. It may be that Council needs to review / refine its environmental sustainable policies to reflect contemporary expectations.

Review clause where appropriate.

Clause 21.01-5 Land Use Vision - the definition of Environment needs to be expanded and updated. It should be consistent with other Hume documents.

Council staff interview

Agree. All of the definitions should be reviewed as part of this comprehensive review of the scheme. The present definition of environment could be improved.

Review all definitions wherever possible and when deemed appropriate.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 26

Local Planning Policy Framework Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendation

Community Wellbeing (Clause 21.02) Clause 21.02-6 under the heading “Rural Areas” the importance of the City’s rural areas to Melbourne Airport should be acknowledged. The MSS states that the rural areas (Green Wedges) help protect significant mineral and stone resources, but they also help protect the ongoing operation of Melbourne Airport. This applies also to the Urban Growth Boundary, which prevents the encroachment of urban development and uses that may prejudice the optimum use of the airport.

Online survey Disagree. The LPPF (in other sections) and MAEO already acknowledge and protect the interests of the Melbourne Airport.

No action required.

Natural Environment and Built Environment (Clause 21.05) The Natural Environment and the Built Environment Need to be spilt.

Council staff interview

Agree. Whilst there are overlaps between these issues, they also raise many distinct issues that require separate expression.

Amend the structure of the LPPF where appropriate.

References to rural land use for cultivation and / or production should be removed / rephrased.

Council staff interview

Disagree. There remains a significant area of rural zoned land within the municipality and the use of this land for agriculture should continue to be recognised.

No change necessary.

Identify more effective strategies to achieve the objective of Clause 21.05-3 (to promote ecologically sustainable development across the City).

Council staff interview

Agree. A review of this clause should be undertaken to confirm that enough direction is provided in the scheme regarding sustainability. It is noted that the LPPF is best informed by clearly articulated and researched Council endorsed policy/strategy. It may be that Council needs to review / refine its environmental sustainable policies to reflect contemporary expectations.

Review clause where appropriate.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 27

Local Planning Policy Framework Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendation

Clause 21.05-1 Biodiversity should discuss the vegetation of Hume and whether it is endangered in a State and Federal context. The significant flora and fauna species in Hume should be recognised.

Council staff interview

Agree. The significance of flora and fauna communities within the municipality should be identified in the LPPF, however do not consider it necessary to reflect the status from a State and Federal context – this is already done through other mechanisms.

Explore the issue of significant flora and fauna within the 21.05-1 and where appropriate acknowledge the significance.

The policy should include reference to threatened species and communities listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 and address relevant potentially threatening processes identified under this Act.

DSE Disagree. It is unnecessary to reflect the status from a State and Federal context – this is already done through other mechanisms.

Explore the issue of significant flora and fauna within the 21.05-1 and where appropriate acknowledge the significance.

Clause 21.05 does not discuss fauna or any of the other EPBC Act issues.

Council staff interview

Disagree. It is unnecessary to reflect the status from a State and Federal context – this is already done through other mechanisms.

Explore the issue of significant flora and fauna within the 21.05-1 and where appropriate acknowledge the significance.

Clause 21.05 should highlight the need to restore biodiversity and protect native flora and fauna habitats.

DSE Agree. The significance of flora and fauna communities within the municipality should be identified in the LPPF.

The point raised should be acknowledged as an objective within the MSS.

Local Areas (Clause 21.06) This policy does not reflect what is happening on the ground and development is occurring contrary to what is in the policy.

Workshop 1 Unclear what this is referring to however each of the Local Areas should be reviewed to reflect current development and the vision for these areas.

Update the LPPF where appropriate to ensure that the objectives and strategies are achievable and clear.

Clause 21.06-2 (Craigieburn & Roxburgh Park Neighbourhood) need to be updated and re-written (pending outcomes of R1, R2 and R3 Precinct Structure Planning Process).

Online survey Agree. This policy should be re-written once the Precinct Structure Plans are finalised.

Update the policies through the PSP process. Revise the LPPF in the future to ensure it is consistent with the PSP process.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 28

Local Planning Policy Framework Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendation

Activity Centres (Clause 21.07) Update policy content contained within this clause in accordance with recommendations of the Hume City Retail Strategy 2009.

Online survey, developer submission

Agree. Improvements need to be made in the way that activity centres are addressed in the LPPF, including the need for a hierarchy. There is also a need for structure plans for individual activity centres and for lower order centres, urban design guidelines.

Undertake an Activities Centre Strategy that explores these issues and at this time amend scheme accordingly. There may also be a need for structure plans for individual activity centres and for lower order centres, urban design guidelines. This can be determined at the completion of the Activity Centre Strategy.

Amend Clause 21.07 to recognise the designation of the Craigieburn Town Centre.

Developer submission

Agree. Improvements need to be made in the way that activity centres are addressed in the LPPF, including the need for a hierarchy. There is also a need for structure plans for individual activity centres and for lower order centres, urban design guidelines.

Undertake an Activities Centre Strategy that explores these issues and at this time amend scheme accordingly. There may also be a need for structure plans for individual activity centres and for lower order centres, urban design guidelines. This can be determined at the completion of the Activity Centre Strategy.

Reference Documents (Clause 21.09) Review this clause to remove outdated reference material.

Online survey Agree. This should occur as part of the review of Hume’s LPPF content.

Amend this clause particularly deleting any information that is no longer required.

Local Planning Policies Local planning policies need to be strengthened and be more locally responsive.

Workshop 2, Online Survey

Agree. This is a very broad statement. The contemporary approach to planning scheme reviews is to reduce the amount of LPPs in favour of strengthening the MSS, zones and overlays.

Consider in overall approach to LPPF structure.

Further policy direction is needed to support and address issue of housing affordability within the municipality.

Online survey Agree. Housing affordability is an important issue and the outcomes Council is seeking should be clearly enunciated in the LPPF.

Undertake a Housing Strategy and where appropriate explore the issue of housing affordability.Review and update the LPPF to highlight the importance of housing affordability.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 29

Local Planning Policy Framework Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendation

Provide clearer policy direction with respect to lot yield targets.

Online survey Agree. The PSP Guidelines already provides this policy direction for all growth areas. However, infill could be further explored through various studies where appropriate. This is a subject that is currently being investigated by the State Government at the moment researching Housing Growth Capacity and Requirements.

Undertake a Housing Strategy and where appropriate explore the issue of lot yield. Support and work on existing projects that are looking at the issues of lot yield.

Landscaping, storm water, and local native vegetation need local policies (the environment team is relying heavily on Clause 52.17 as there is no local native vegetation policy).

Workshop 1 Agree. Some of these issues need to be adequately addressed in the LPPF, however, the contemporary approach to planning scheme reviews is to reduce the amount of LPPs in favour of strengthening the MSS zones and overlays.

Review LPPF, Zones and Overlays where appropriate.

Need a policy for non-residential uses in residential zones.

Workshop 1 Agree. It is evident from the consultation that several land uses, i.e. places of worship, would benefit from greater planning guidance to address this issue.

However, it is noted that the contemporary approach to planning scheme reviews is to reduce the amount of LPPs in favour of strengthening the MSS, zones and overlays.

Develop policy direction for targeted land uses.

Need a policy, guidance and clear designation for infill development.

Workshop 1, online survey

Agree. Policy direction is required to clarify Council’s position on infill development. A contemporary housing strategy prepared in light of current State Government policy would provide the basis for this policy direction.

Provide the necessary policy direction for this based on a contemporary housing strategy.

There needs to be consideration as to whether some of the local policies are used or whether they are redundant.

Online Survey Agree. The contemporary approach to planning scheme reviews is to reduce the amount of LPPs in favour of strengthening the MSS, zones and overlays.

Review LPPF, zones and overlays in light of these comments.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 30

Local Planning Policy Framework Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendation

More direction in local policies to assist in future planning. In particular to areas of great change e.g. Broadmeadows.

Online Survey Agree. Refer to comments on specific issues made above.

Review LPPF in light of these comments.

Industrial Local Planning Policy (Clause 22.01) This policy is too specific and needs to allow more flexibility.

Online survey, Workshop 1

Agree. This policy is highly prescriptive, and greater flexibility may be warranted.

Review this local planning policy.

The policy makes direct reference to Cooper Street & Northcorp Industrial Park, this opens areas of conflict to industrial sites outside theses areas, and ideally some general reference should also be noted to allow the wider assessments as well.

Online survey Agree. This policy is highly prescriptive, and greater flexibility may be warranted.

Review this local planning policy.

Environmental provisions should be considered.

Online survey Agree. The policy already identifies environmental issues that need to be considered, however it is not clear whether these consideration are only identified in the context of the Cooper Street industrial area. Whether the environmental issues identified are appropriate should be considered.

Review this local planning policy.

Rural Land Character and Urban Design Local Planning Policy (Clause 22.02) While creek valleys are mentioned in the Basis and Objectives, no corresponding Policy detail is provided.

Online survey Agree. There is a lack of connection between the basis and objectives of this policy and the actual policy statements.

Consider revisions to policy in the context of the overall approach to LPPF structure.

It was queried whether this policy should also apply to Green Wedge land.

Online survey Agree. The zones identified in this policy are outdated and if this policy is to be retained this should be rectified.

Consider revisions to policy in the context of the overall approach to LPPF structure.

Rural design policies are outdated.

Online survey Agree. There is a need to update this policy. Consider revisions to policy in the context of the overall approach to LPPF structure.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 31

Local Planning Policy Framework Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendation

It is important that land use and development does not have an impact on the areas of prescribed airspace as defined in the Melbourne Airport Master Plan, 2008.

Online survey Agree. This is an important issue. Review existing policy and controls to ensure appropriate recognition and protection exists. If deficiencies are identified address these.

Environment provisions should be considered.

Online survey Agree. This policy does already touch on some environmental issues however if the policy is to be retained it should be contain a greater focus on environmental management.

Review policy content relating to environmental issues.

Pipeworks Fun Market Local Policy (Clause 22.03) This policy does not provide clarity to this area’s future direction.

Online survey Agree. The establishment of a clear retail hierarchy needs to address the key underlying issue regarding the future development and use of this area.

Consider that a separate policy is not warranted.

Ensure that retail hierarchy structure recognises and provides appropriate direction for this site.

Broadmeadows Transit City Local Policy (Clause 22.05) Designation needs to be changed a Centre Activities District.

Online survey, Workshop 2

Agree. This policy should be reviewed in conjunction with the current Structure Plan that is being prepared for the CAD. Any policy changes should be as a result of this work, including the possible deletion of the LPP because of the use of the ACZ.

Make the policy stronger. Online survey Agree. The policy should be reviewed on completion of the structure plan to ensure that it provides the necessary direction.

This policy should be reviewed in conjunction with the current Structure Plan that is being prepared for the CAD. Any policy changes should be as a result of this work, including the possible deletion of the LPP because of the use of the ACZ.

Height and scale around the CAD need to be defined within the policy.

Workshop 2 Agree. The policy should be reviewed on completion of the structure plan to ensure that it provides the necessary direction.

This policy should be reviewed in conjunction with the current Structure Plan that is being prepared for the CAD. Any policy changes should be as a result of this work – which may mean the deletion of the LPP because of the use of the ACZ.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 32

Local Planning Policy Framework Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendation

Sunbury Town Centre Local Policy (Clause 22.06) This policy should be updated once further work is completed on the Town Centre Structure Plan.

Online survey Agree. The policy should be reviewed on completion of the structure plan to ensure that it provides the necessary direction.

Review this policy and amend as appropriate as part of the implementation of the 2008 Structure Plan.

Macedon Street Office Area Local Policy (Clause 22.10) Recent development within area has occurred, may require revision or may no longer be relevant - Sunbury Town Centre Plan would provide further information or discussion on this.

Online survey Agree. The policy should be reviewed on completion of the structure plan to ensure that it provides the necessary direction.

Review this policy and amend as appropriate as part of the implementation of the 2008 Structure Plan.

Neighbourhood Shopping Centres Local Policy (Clause 22.11) To prevent duplication and/or inconsistencies, consider replacing references to 'Planning Guidelines for Development of Neighbourhood Shopping Centres' (1995) with Activity Centre Design Guidelines, DPCD, 2005.

Online survey Agree. Review and update the references to these documents where appropriate.

The policy is too prescriptive in terms of size and catchments.

Online survey Agree. The level of prescription currently contained within the policy is very detailed. The policy should be reviewed and have its basis in the proposed retail strategy.

Undertake an Activities Centre Strategy that explores these issues and at this time amend scheme accordingly.

Review policy and change where appropriate given the completion of the retail strategy.

The policy needs revision - retail strategy and specific guidance on activity centres.

Online survey Agree. The policy should be reviewed and have its basis in the proposed retail strategy.

Undertake an Activities Centre Strategy that explores these issues and at this time amend scheme accordingly.

Review policy and change where appropriate given the completion of the retail strategy.

Hierarchy of activity centres needs to be included in the context of Hume.

Workshop 1 Agree. The policy should be reviewed and have its basis in the proposed retail strategy.

Undertake an Activities Centre Strategy that explores these issues and at this time amend scheme accordingly. Review policy and change where appropriate given the completion of the retail strategy.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 33

Local Planning Policy Framework Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendation

Needs to include a vision and urban design elements.

Workshop 1 Agree. The policy should be reviewed and have its basis in the proposed retail strategy.

Undertake an Activities Centre Strategy that explores these issues at this time amend scheme accordingly.

Review policy and change where appropriate given the completion of the retail strategy.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 34

Table 6 Zones

Zones Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendations

Update zoning to reflect current land uses (e.g. in UGZ and CDZ).

Workshop 1, Online Survey

Agree. Development progresses interim zones, such as the UGZ and CDZ, should be replaced with more appropriate VPP zones such as the R1Z.

Amend planning scheme to reflect existing development and appropriate VPP zones.

No appropriate zone for native vegetation on private land (i.e. it is not public open space).

Workshop 1 Disagree. VPP tools such as the Vegetation Protection Overlay or Environmental Significance Overlay are appropriate where native vegetation values warrant them. The zoning is not the appropriate tool.

Ensure appropriate application of overlays to protect native vegetation.

Schedules need to be updated.

Workshop 1, online survey

Agree. All schedules should be reviewed as part of the overall planning scheme review.

This is particularly important given the State Government directions to reduce reliance on local policy to inform decision making.

Review and update schedules.

There is no appropriate zone for restricted retail.

Workshop 1 The retail strategy should address this issue and provide required strategic direction for this land use. Once this is achieved, the use of planning tools such as zones and schedules may need review, including an approach to DPCD to discuss the potential for changes to the VPPs if Council still considers the existing VPPs tools inadequate.

Update scheme to reflect Council’s retail strategy and address this issue as required the use either using zones and policies or other tools that may emerge in discussion with DPCD.

The Industrial zone needs to be reviewed in terms of emerging uses in this zone e.g. convenience shops, offices.

Workshop 1 Agree. It is evident from consultation that this is a significant issue and direction needs to be provided in the LPPF to assist in the decision making process. If more substantive changes to the zone/VPPs are required, Council will need to raise this with DPCD.

Modify the LPPF as required and review the use of existing zones and policies or other tools that may emerge in discussion with DPCD as appropriate.

Update zoning maps to reflect the UGB and current growth areas.

Online Survey This is a State Government process that will be undertaken once the Parliament has ratified this program and mapping amendment.

No action required

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 35

Zones Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendations

Delete retail floorspace cap contained in Schedule 3 to the CDZ in line with findings of the adopted Hume City Retail Strategy Review.

Online Survey Agree. This issue should be resolved in the implementation of the final Hume Retail Strategy.

Update the planning scheme where appropriate to reflect the recommendations of the final Hume Retail Strategy.

More comprehensive LPPs could lead to fewer zones.

Online Survey Disagree. The VPP structure is well established and it is not considered that there are an excessive number of zones. Furthermore the current direction of the State Government is to use fewer but more focused LPPs in favour of a greater reliance on the MSS and zones and overlays.

No change required.

PCRZ needs to move beyond "minimal degradation" to active revitalisation of degraded landscapes, especially near watercourses.

Online Survey Agree. However this is a State standard provision and Council will need to raise this issue with DPCD if deemed significant enough.

This issue could be raised along with other more important issues identified as part of Council’s discussions with DPCD on this review.

There are some zones that are no longer necessary, for example, some areas within the UFZ. There needs to be consideration as to whether these can be dealt with by landowners in a bit by bit way, or whether there should be a holistic review undertaken by Council.

Online Survey Agree. This planning scheme review provides the opportunity to identify any anomalies that need to be addressed. An adhoc approach for individual properties is not recommended.

Undertake a review of the UFZ as appropriate.

Need to look at opportunities to improve land use in areas close to freeways.

Online Survey Unclear as to what is intended here in terms of ‘improving’ land use.

Land use should be a product of an articulated Council vision for specific areas including land in the vicinity of freeways.

No change required.

Current zones are a hindrance especially in the green wedge zones.

Online survey Disagree. The Green Wedge Zone is deliberately restrictive to ensure continuity of rural uses and protection of environmental values.

No change required.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 36

Zones Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendations

Sometimes there is not always a best fit zone and schedule to deal with objectives of the planning scheme. Sometimes there is concern that the MSS and local planning policies do not hold enough weight to ensure objectives are achieved when the zones and schedules do not provide a sufficient fit.

Online survey Disagree. An overall objective of this scheme review needs to be to ensure that the LPPF, zones and overlays provide clear direction for land use and development.

No change required.

Review land in the Green Wedge A Zone.

Online Survey Unclear as to why the respondent feels changes are required to this zone. Urban growth within the municipality is managed as part of the metropolitan growth planning process. A review specifically of the application of this zone is not appropriate.

The Green Wedge Zone is deliberately restrictive to ensure continuity of rural uses and protection of environmental values.

No change required.

Review Green Wedge subdivision controls.

Online survey This is an ongoing issue that has some merit and although the Green Wedge Zone is deliberately restrictive in relation to subdivision to ensure continuity of rural uses and protection of environmental values, the use of subdivision controls and “minimums” should be further explored.

Undertake this investigation of subdivision minimums and controls through completing the Green Wedge Management Plan.

Schedule to the Green Wedge Zone should be used to utilise the provisions regarding fill.

Council staff interview

Unclear as to what is meant by this issue. A permit is required for works n the Green Wedge Zone where it is associated with most common uses such as the use of land for a dwelling, If this provision is considered inadequate then a broader approach to DPCD is warranted.

No change required.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 37

Zones Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendations

From a land management perspective Green Wedge Zone is a disincentive for sustainable land management.

Council staff interview

Disagree. The Green Wedge Zone objectives clearly support sustainable land management. Unclear as to how the zone is a disincentive. It is acknowledged that disincentives exist in relation to native vegetation, however this does not relate to the zone.

No change required.

UGZ – within the zone inappropriate land management plans have been submitted – absentee land owners in particular cause a number of issues because the zone itself acts as a disincentive to actually look after land (in particular if there are known vegetation on site)

Council staff interview

The Planning Scheme is not the appropriate tool to be utilised for this issue. Not clear as to the context of the submission of land management plans in the UGZ. It is acknowledged that disincentives exist in relation to native vegetation, however this does not relate to the zone.

No change required.

It appears the zoning of Crown land is inconsistent and these anomalies should be corrected to either apply the Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ), Public Conservation and Resource Zone (PCRZ) or Public Use Zone (PUZ) – refer to submission for examples of these land parcels.

DSE Agree. This is a separate piece of work that needs to be undertaken to scrutinise and address the issues that have already been identified.

Work with DSE to identify and address these anomalies.

Council should not give car parking dispensation in industrial zones.

Workshop 1 Relates to discretionary application of powers by Council that is informed by the Industrial Local Policy.

Review Local Policy 22.01 and rewrite as appropriate.

Rural Living Zone, Green Wedge Zone, Green Wedge A Zone and Farming Zone – it needs to be specified in each of these zones that a permit is required for the importation of fill onto the land in excess of a certain volume of measure.

Council staff submission

A permit is required for works in most if not all of these zones where the works are associated with a Section 2 use.

If this provision is considered inadequate then a broader approach to DPCD is warranted. Council’s Sustainable Environment Department are currently working through these issues.

Amend the Planning Scheme if appropriate.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 38

Table 7 Overlays

Overlays Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendations

ESO across the municipality needs to be reviewed (or is Significant Landscape Overlay required?) because it is applied inconsistently across the municipality.

Council staff interview, DSE

Agree. The application of overlays across Hume needs to be reviewed to ensure they are applied consistently.

Undertake a review of the Environmental Significance Overlay and amend the scheme as appropriate.

Need an overlay control for water catchments, ESO is not specific enough.

Workshop 1 There is an identified need to control the use of any closed water catchment within Hume. It is noted that the Greenvale Reservoir in Hume is one of these key catchments.

Undertake a review of the controls over the Greenvale Reservoir and apply appropriate VPP tools.

There is no overlay on waterways or tributaries. There is no protection of threatened (fauna) species habitats or habitat values – which a VPO would not necessarily pick up.

Council staff interview

Agree. The application of overlays across Hume needs to be reviewed to ensure they are applied consistently.

Undertake a review of the Environmental Significance Overlay.

ESO5 at Mt Ridley does not have enough strength. A permit is required to remove Red Gums – however there are no controls regarding planting of exotic species which may actually impact on the health of the Red Gums.

Council staff interview

A permit is not required to plant vegetation. It is acknowledged that in significant areas, such as this the planting of exotic vegetation impacts upon environmental or landscape values however, the Hume Planning Scheme is not the most appropriate tool for this issue.

Consider need to raise this issue with DPCD when appropriate. Consider the need for a non planning tool to address this issue.

Address anomalies in the alignment and width of the ESO2, e.g. between Gasoline Way, Craigieburn and Craigieburn Road East.

Stakeholder submission

Agree. This planning scheme review provides the opportunity to identify any anomalies that need to be addressed.

Undertake a review of the Environmental Significance Overlay and amend the scheme as appropriate.

The need for the ESO1 and ESO2 to be extended along more waterways than it currently does, for example the tributaries of Merri Creek, i.e. Kalkallo Creek, Aitken Creek and Malcolm Creek.

Stakeholder submission, Council staff interview

Agree. The application of overlays across Hume needs to be reviewed to ensure they are applied consistently.

Undertake a review of the Environmental Significance Overlay and amend the scheme as appropriate.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 39

Overlays Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendations

Schedule 2 to the ESO should be split in two – one for Merri Creek and one for Moonee Ponds Creek.

Council Staff interview

Disagree. The merits of splitting the ESO into two should be determined by the differences in environmental significance between these waterways.

Consider it unlikely that there is a need to split the ESO for each waterway given likely common issues and objectives. However, explore these issues through a review of the Environmental Significance Overlay and amend the scheme as appropriate.

VPO requires a review – it is applied inconsistently across the municipality and there are barely any on private land

Workshop 1, Council staff interview, DSE

Agree. The application of overlays across Hume needs to be reviewed to ensure they are applied consistently.

Undertake a review of the application of the VPO overlays and amend the scheme as appropriate

Remove overlays that have become redundant – e.g. DPO’s that cover areas where development is complete.

Workshop 1, online survey

Agree. The application of overlays across Hume needs to be reviewed to ensure that they are still required and reflect the existing land use.

Undertake a review of the application of the DPOs and amend the scheme as appropriate.

Rationalise DPO schedules – there are 22 in the planning scheme

Workshop 1 Agree. The opportunity to rationalise the number of DPOs should be investigated.

Undertake a review of the DPOs and rationalise where appropriate.

MAEO 1 and MAEO 2 can apply to one property which has caused confusion on how they should be interpreted for example whether one or more dwellings can be constructed on a property. The original proposal by the State was part in all in, with the more restrictive overlay applying to whole of the property. This situation should be simplified or guidelines provided.

Online survey Discussions should be held with DPCD to address this issue.

Discuss this matter with DPCD.

Schedules to the overlays need to ensure Council’s policy direction is clear.

Online survey Agree. The schedules to the overlays should be reviewed to ensure the Hume’s policy direction is clear.

Review the schedules throughout the scheme and amend as appropriate.

A review of the adequacy of current overlay controls is necessary, particularly in growth areas of the municipality.

Online survey Unclear as to where inadequacies exist other than those already identified in this table.

No action required.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 40

Overlays Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendations

There is common inaccuracy and consequent lax interpretation of SBO.

Online survey This issue relates to Council’s interpretation of the SBO and the exercise of discretion. Council needs to ensure a consistent interpretation is maintained across all staff.

No action required.

Introduce the Development Guidelines for Merri Creek in the form of a new Schedule 2 to the ESO or alternatively strengthen the existing ESO.

Stakeholder submission

Council would need to adopt and recognise these guidelines before they are reflected in the planning scheme or introduced as a Reference Document.

Consider the merits of recognising these development guidelines in the scheme.

Table 8 Particular Provisions

Particular Provisions Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendations

Sustainability should be incorporated into Clause 55 etc.

Workshop 1 Hume City Council would need to advocate for this to occur as it would require changes to the Victoria Planning Provisions.

Consider need to raise this issue with DPCD in the context of other matters to be raised as part of the scheme review.

Concern that 52.17 as a trigger is not adequate enough to trigger need for permit – it seems to be more palatable by residents if there is an overlay onsite

Council staff interview

Agree. The application of an overlay to address native vegetation needs to be justified by the significance of the vegetation. This matter should be considered as part of the review of the application of environmental overlays as part of this scheme review.

Ensure that a review of the ESOs and VPOs across the municipality is undertaken.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 41

Table 9 Referral authorities

Referral Authorities Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendations

Melbourne Water is not a statutory referral authority under the Hume Planning Scheme. Currently Statutory Planning can only refer to them under the provisions of clause 52 (general notice provisions). This can be a significant issue particularly regarding the establishment of Dams.

Council staff interview

Referral to Melbourne Water should only occur in relation to issues that require its permission under separate legislation (i.e. dam licensing, issues within declared potable water catchments, floodplains).

Liaise with Melbourne Water to confirm its referral needs.

The current Schedule to Clause 66 does not contain any referrals to DSE pursuant to Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, nor does it require any mandatory notification pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. A number of Overlays however, require consideration of the Department’s and/or Parks Victoria’s views before the Responsible Authority decides on the application. These are neither Section 55’s or Section 52’s. It would be beneficial to review the Overlays listed below to determine whether ‘the views of’ or an item ‘to the satisfaction of’ should be converted to a Section 52, 55, deleted or altered to be more specific. The following list is not comprehensive and the Hume Planning Scheme may include further planning controls which reference DSE and/or Parks Victoria. • DPO10

DSE Agree. The merits of including a referral or notice provision for Parks Victoria or DSE depend on the requirement in the individual planning control for their views on a proposal or for a proposal to be to their satisfaction. As an alternative to amending Clause 66 (or as a complimentary action) specific overlays could be revised to require this referral.

Review the relevant overlays and introduce referral requirements as appropriate.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 42

Referral Authorities Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendations

• DPO14 • DPO16 • DPO17 • DPO21

Table 10 Reference Documents

Reference Documents Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendations

Reference documents are outdated. Online survey Agree. The relevance of the reference documents needs to be determined (i.e. remove reference to documents that are redundant and replace with current documents). The review of reference documents should be undertaken in light of the documents outlined in the table below.

Review reference documents for currency.

Table 11 Site or specific matters

Site or issue specific matters Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendations

It was suggested that Hume should not be allowing subdivisions of land within the natural water supply. Farming properties with a natural water supply are very valuable from a farming perspective.

Online survey These matters are resolved prior to land being rezoned from rural to urban zones. Once rezoned, the land is considered fit for a change in use.

No change required.

Hume is looking at subdivision along Lancefield Road Sunbury. This submission suggested that all new subdivisions should be close to the Calder which is an existing freeway.

Online survey Disagree. This relates to a site specific matter and urban growth policy which is considered on a metropolitan wide basis by the Growth Areas Authority.

No change required.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 43

Site or issue specific matters Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendations

Clearer direction on the location where uncommon uses are to be located within the municipality, for example: • Places of worship • LMCT licensed businesses • Kebab vans

Online survey, workshop 1, workshop 2

Agree. It is evident from our consultation that several land uses, i.e. places of worship, would benefit from greater planning guidance to address these issues.

Develop policy direction for targeted land uses and implement it where appropriate through the LPPF.

Need to develop ideas about what to do with the former quarry and landfill sites between Melbourne Airport and Woodlands Historic Park.

Online survey Disagree. This relates to a site which is in State Government ownership and until such time as the State Government has formed an opinion on these sites no action is required.

No change required.

Need more explicit consideration of Overlays for the upper Moonee Ponds Creek catchment north of Somerton Road.

Online survey Agree. This matter should be considered as part of the review of the application of environmental overlays as part of this scheme review.

Undertake a review of the ESO or VPO and amend the scheme as appropriate.

Delete the E14 reservation (which is no longer appropriate) to ensure the mistakes of an earlier era in disrupting creek valleys to accommodate freeways are not repeated by default.

Online survey Disagree. The E14/Aitken Boulevard is an important connector road that is integral for the land use development and road networks in the future. It is a road reservation that has long been supported by State and local government policy.

No change required.

Kalkallo has significant environmental value and needs to have an appropriate ESO/VPO placed over much of it.

Interview with Council staff

This matter should be considered as part of the review of the application of environmental overlays as part of this scheme review.

Undertake a review of the ESO or VPO and amend the scheme as appropriate.

Craiglee has been identified as part of a Special Investigation Area within the Hume Planning Scheme.

Developer submission

Agree. The status of this area needs to be confirmed in light of the recent extension of the urban growth boundary around Sunbury by the State Government.

This is a State Government issue and Council’s plans should reflect these issues once the UGB has been finalised.

Clause 21.06-8 Sunbury should be reviewed in light of the long term growth scenario for Sunbury and the sustainability of the vineyards proximate to or within the urban area.

Developer submission

Agree. This Clause needs to be reviewed as part of this scheme review to update it to reflect the recent extension of the urban growth boundary around Sunbury.

This is a State Government issue and Council’s plans should reflect these issues once the UGB has been finalised.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 44

Site or issue specific matters Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendations

The MSS should maintain flexibility in terms of the broader economic and agricultural issues affecting grape production.

Developer submission

Agree. The scheme needs to provide flexibility for agricultural production consistent with the imperatives identified in Council’s economic strategy.

Review LPPF in regards to how it addresses agricultural land use and the economy.

No reference is made to the Merrifield Activity Centre within the activity centre policy content – the precinct has been identified as a key component of supporting employment at Merrifield.

Developer submission

Agree. Improvements need to be made in the way that activity centres are addressed in the LPPF, including the need for a hierarchy. There is also a need for structure plans for individual activity centres and for lower order centres, urban design guidelines.

Undertake an Activities Centre Strategy that explores these issues – and at this time amend scheme accordingly.

The transport policy content recognises E14 in the southern sections of the municipality but this terminates in Craigieburn. Continuance of this route through to the north of the municipality is considered important in the long term planning of the area.

Developer submission

Disagree. These issues are beyond the scope of the 12B review. These issues are more about broad land use and integrated planning that is taking place elsewhere currently.

No change required.

The potential role of the E14 as a public transport corridor should be included in the policy content to ensure definition of the route.

Developer submission

This matter could be addressed in an integrated transport strategy.

Update the planning scheme where appropriate if Council undertakes an integrated transport strategy.

Transport policy should be investigating alternatives to rail located centrally in the Hume growth corridor. Sustainability through local transport connection is considered a desirable long term objective.

Developer submission

This matter could be addressed in an integrated transport strategy.

Update the planning scheme where appropriate if Council undertakes an integrated transport strategy.

Changes to the existing road network, including the upgrade to Donnybrook Road, are not currently recognised in the framework within the transport policy content.

Developer submission

Agree. The framework plans within the LPPF require updating.

Update the applicable framework plan as part of this scheme review.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 45

Site or issue specific matters Issues Raised by-

Response Future Actions / Recommendations

The potential for the open space role of Kalkallo Creek has not been identified in the open space policy, although detailed within the Merrifield Development Contributions Plan approved by Hume City Council.

Developer submission

This submission seems to have identified an anomaly in the open space policy that should be considered.

Council needs to consider whether the significance of this waterway and its role in providing open space should be identified in the LPPF.

The potential to use the Kalkallo Retarding Basin for a regional open space asset in the north of the municipality should be contemplated, particularly given the lack of facilities within this part of the growth corridor.

Developer submission

Council needs to consider this submission in light of its open space policy before any consideration is given to recognition in the planning scheme.

No change required.

The role of rural land and the extent of protected rural land should be assessed to assist addressing interface issues.

Developer submission

Agree. The role of rural land within the municipality needs to be recognised in the LPPF. Council will address these issues through Green Wedge Management Plans once the UGB has been established.

Provide clearer direction regarding the role of rural land in the LPPF.

Clarification of the role of the inter-urban break at Mt. Ridley and its future.

Developer submission

This should be considered in light of the recent expansion of the urban growth boundary.

Provide policy direction for this area in the LPPF. To be discussed.

It is important that the planning scheme formally recognises the current and future role of Craigieburn Town Centre within the Trade Area retail hierarchy.

Developer submission

Agree. Improvements need to be made in the way that activity centres are addressed in the LPPF, including the need for a hierarchy. There is also a need for structure plans for individual activity centres and for lower order centres, urban design guidelines.

Undertake an Activities Centre Strategy that explores these issues – and at this time amend scheme accordingly.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 46

Table 12 Planning Scheme Structure

Planning Scheme Structure Issue Raised by-

Response Future Action / Recommendations

It may be useful to have an introductory section in the MSS that describes the setup of the MSS and how it should be used (i.e. explain the setup of key issues, objectives, strategies, implementation etc and how Council expects these different aspects to be considered in decision making).

Online survey This is covered in Clause 20 of the VPPs. No change required.

Council guidelines and local policies not currently incorporated in the scheme that are used to assess an application should be incorporated, or a local policy created to assist in the assessment process e.g. Stormwater Policy or Landscaping guidelines

Online survey Agree. This review should consider the relevance of Council guidelines and policies that are currently outside the scheme to determine whether they should be introduced or key principles reflected in the scheme.

Review relevant policies and guidelines and consider within the LPPF.

Fewer zones would help, but not without a comprehensive LPP.

Online survey Disagree. This is not recommended as it conflicts with current directions for planning schemes being considered by DPCD which are looking to reduce the number of LPP, with greater reliance on the zones and overlays.

No change required.

The policies in the planning schemes need to be written clearly and concisely.

Online survey This should occur as part of the review of the LPPF. Review LPPF for clarity.

Too many documents and policies are open to interpretation the grey areas need to be removed.

Online survey This should occur as part of the review of the LPPF. Review LPPF for clarity.

Increase emphasis on LPPs. Online survey Disagree. This is not recommended as it conflicts with current directions for planning schemes being considered by DPCD which are looking to reduce the number of LPP, with greater reliance on the zones and overlays.

No change required.

There should be hyperlinks between sections of the planning scheme, to make it easier when navigating through it on the internet.

Workshop 1 Council is not in a position to address this matter as DPCD is responsible for the management of the VPPs.

No change required.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 47

Planning Scheme Structure Issue Raised by-

Response Future Action / Recommendations

Reduce repetition Online survey Agree. This should occur as part of the review of the LPPF.

Review LPPF to reduce repetition.

Table 13 Further Strategic Work

Further strategic work Issue Raised by-

Response Future Action /

Recommendations Responsibility

Preparation of a Housing Strategy for Hume.

Workshop 1 Agree. A Housing Strategy would help clarify Council’s position on housing affordability, infill development and housing diversity.

Hume should prepare a Housing Strategy.

Strategic Planning Department

Need to look at undertaking a Biodiversity corridor policy – currently there are a number of small isolated patches of significant vegetation that is being isolated – i.e. Amberfield grasslands.

Council staff interview

This should be considered in light of the recent Securing Our Natural Future – A White Paper for Land and Biodiversity at a Time of Climate Change by DSE which identifies the importance of biolinks.

Consider merits of preparing a policy or document to identify bio links.

Sustainable Environment Department

Council will be undertaking a Climate Change strategy policy during 2010 – it should be encouraged that the document has some land use outcomes.

Council staff interview

This document is likely to contain matters of relevance to the planning scheme.

Review document to determine whether it should be introduced into the planning scheme as a reference documents or key principles reflected in the LPPF.

Sustainable Environment Department

Council and DSE have some mapping regarding vegetation. These would need to be ground truthed and peer reviewed for actual robustness.

Council staff interview

This matter should be considered as part of the review of the application of environmental overlays as part of this scheme review.

Review application and content of environmental overlays as part of scheme review.

DSE

Council could investigate writing a Sustainable Development Policy which could incorporate issues such as storm water (beyond the industrial areas).

Council staff interview

Agree. The need for such a policy has been identified by a number of respondents.

Ensure that sustainable development is addressed in the revised LPPF. N.B. This has already been finished

Strategic Planning Department and Sustainable Environment Division.

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 48

Further strategic work Issue Raised by-

Response Future Action /

Recommendations Responsibility

and the LPP is currently with the Minister for Authorisation.

Open space strategy with some land use planning related outcomes.

Council staff interview

Comment noted. The open space strategy will need further work prior to achieving the desired outcomes that could be implemented in the planning scheme.

Ensure that any land use planning related outcomes are implemented into the Planning Scheme where appropriate.

Strategic Planning Department and Leisure Services

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 49

Table 14 Issues and trends

Issues, trends or developments that the revised Planning Scheme should include Issue Raised by-

Response Future Action /

Recommendations Responsible Department

Better integration of land use and public transport planning across the municipality. Public transport capacity and connectivity requirements.

Developer submission, workshop 2

Council should consider this as part of its overall integrated transport strategy.

Following finalisation of the integrated transport strategy consider how it should be reflected in the planning scheme.

Strategic Planning Department

Local Structure Planning timelines need to be considered.

Online survey Agree. The planning scheme review should identify the development sequence for growth areas.

Strategic Planning Department

Undertake an Activity Centres Plan that addresses growth centres and activity centre and associated networks.

Online survey, workshop 1

Agree. Improvements need to be made in the way that activity centres are addressed in the LPPF, including the need for a hierarchy. There is also a need for structure plans for individual activity centres and for lower order centres, urban design guidelines.

Undertake an Activity Centres Plan.

Strategic Planning Department

The planning scheme needs to address Climate change, oil vulnerability and transport alternatives, sustainability and environment protection. Water contamination, leaching emissions from land fill.

Online survey Agree. These are important long term planning issues that should be addressed in the scheme.

Ensure that these issues are addressed in the LPPF.

Strategic Planning Department

Increasing pressure for outward development from the community and the State Government. The planning scheme needs to provide basis to respond to these pressures.

Online survey Agree. The planning scheme should provide a framework for the management of the future growth in Hume.

Undertake an Integrated Growth Area Plan that addresses these issues Once finalised where appropriate ensure that these issues are addressed in the LPPF.

Strategic Planning Department

Council needs to improve how it is perceived in terms of assisting land owners to use green wedge land better by relaxing subdivision control.

Online survey The Green Wedge Zone is deliberately restrictive to ensure continuity of rural uses and protection of environmental values.

Nil. N/a

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 50

Issues, trends or developments that the revised Planning Scheme should include Issue Raised by-

Response Future Action /

Recommendations Responsible Department

Recreation trends. Online survey This should be addressed in the open space strategy and relevant components of the strategy included in the LPPF.

Undertake an Open Space Strategy that adequately addresses these issues.

Leisure Department

Victorian Transport Plan - changes train services and bus routes, proposed changes to the ring road and outer metropolitan road.

Online survey Council should consider the implications of the VTP as part of an integrated transport plan this as part of its overall integrated transport strategy.

Undertake an integrated transport plan.

Strategic Planning Department/ State Government

The changing nature of work (e.g. impending access of the National Broadband Network).

Online survey This should be considered by Council as an emerging trend and opportunity.

Ensure these issues are addressed in the LPPF where appropriate.

Strategic Planning Department/State Government

Green wedge management plans, promises had been made by Council but nothing has been delivered.

Online survey Council has already delivered phase 1 of the Green Wedge Management Plan the rest was delayed because of the State Government exploring the expansion to the urban growth boundary.

Finalise phase 2 of the Green Wedge Management Plan.

Strategic Planning Department

Use of interesting/active street frontages – it has been difficult to enforce this and the safer by design guidelines.

Workshop 2 The LPPF should provide a stronger basis for good urban design outcomes. It is agreed that further direction is required.

Review LPPF to ensure that good urban design outcomes are encouraged where appropriate.

Strategic Planning Department

Absence of package liquor policy.

Workshop 2 If Council agrees that this is a significant land use planning issue, the LPPF is likely to be able to assist in addressing this issue.

Nil. N/a

Changing demographics playing an important part in the needs of the community.

Online survey Hume’s current and future demographics should be considered when reviewing the LPPF.

The LPPF should reflect the current demographics of the municipality.

Update the LPPF as appropriate

The planning scheme needs policies that cover walkability, amenity and surveillance.

Workshop 2 Agree. These are important planning issues that should be addressed in the scheme.

Ensure that these issues are addressed in the LPPF where appropriate.

Strategic Planning Department

Affordable housing - need a mix of two bedrooms to four bedroom houses, housing for aged persons.

Workshop 2 Agree. The issue of affordable housing and housing diversity are important planning issues that should be addressed in the scheme.

Undertake a Housing Strategy that explores these issues. Ensure that these issues are addressed in the LPPF where appropriate.

Strategic Planning Department/ Social Development

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 51

Issues, trends or developments that the revised Planning Scheme should include Issue Raised by-

Response Future Action /

Recommendations Responsible Department

Affordability pressures - there are higher housing prices in Sunbury and Diggers Rest, which indicates higher demand for housing and insufficient supply.

Online survey Agree. The issue of affordable housing is an important planning issue that should be addressed in the scheme.

Undertake a Housing Strategy that explores these issues. Ensure that these issues are addressed in the LPPF where appropriate.

Strategic Planning/ Social Development

The Office of Housing is past its use by date.

Workshop 2 Comment noted. Nil. N/a

Social infrastructure – there is little vision for this in the MSS/Council Plan.

Workshop 2 Council needs to review provision planning in relation to Social Infrastructure.

Undertake a Social Infrastructure Plan.

Social Development/ Health Planning and Strategic Planning

Aged persons – design principles need to be considered.

Workshop 2 Comment noted. There is a need to specifically address design principles for aged persons.

Ensure that these design issues are addressed in the LPPF where appropriate

Strategic Planning

Aged people need access to the higher tiered activity centres (e.g. proximity to services, shops etc accessed via walking).

Workshop 2 The LPPF should reflect the key outcomes of the Public Health and Wellbeing Strategy which should identify this issue.

Ensure that these issues are addressed in the LPPF where appropriate.

Health Planning/ Strategic Planning

The planning scheme review needs to consider the Victorian Charter of Human Rights.

Workshop 2 Agree. Consider the implications of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights in the LPPF.

Social Development/ Strategic Planning

Planning scheme is silent on the sustainability of built form (e.g. low cost housing, water tanks).

Workshop 2 Agree. The need to embed sustainability of built form is an important long term planning issue that should be addressed in the scheme.

Ensure that this issue is addressed in the LPPF Implements the objectives of the Pathways to Sustainability Document.

Strategic Planning/ Sustainable Environment

Water harvesting – helps with managing peak flows. Water should be harvested in developing areas.

Workshop 2 Agree. The need to embed sustainability of built form is an important long term planning issue that should be addressed in the scheme.

Ensure that this issue is addressed in the LPPF Implements the objectives of the Pathways to Sustainability Document.

Strategic Planning/ Sustainable Environment

AECOMHume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 52

Issues, trends or developments that the revised Planning Scheme should include Issue Raised by-

Response Future Action /

Recommendations Responsible Department

It was suggested there should be commentary in the planning scheme on ‘the return to Mainstreets’.

Council staff submission

This is an outcome of the Craigieburn Advisory Panel and should be reflected in the Hume Planning Scheme where appropriate.

Undertake an Activity Centre Plan that explores this issue and reflect it where appropriate in the planning scheme.

Strategic Planning

Hume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 53

Hume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 A

Appendix A

Workshop 1

Hume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 A-1

Appendix A Workshop 1 Workshop 1 - Strategic and Statutory Planners, 25 March 2010

Summary of participant feedback

The workshop was attended by:

• Two statutory planners; and

• Eight strategic planners.

The issues raised in the workshop include the following:

SPPF

• No real direction – too general • Advertising not covered • A lot of the policies are not used or needed for Hume • It is very broad • Needs to include a regional planning layer in addition to a State wide layer as many issues apply to regions

rather than municipalities or the whole State • Doesn’t cover risks to people (e.g. safety, visibility, surveillance) • Climate change policy needs to be strengthened • Sustainability – It should be engrained in all development • Liveability – needs to be further developed and more explicit e.g. affordability, housing, public transport • Lack of State Government policy co-ordination, but it does bring in other policies e.g. DDA • It should set more target based development requirements/standards? E.g. incorporating sustainable design

into developments, affordable housing.

MSS

• Lacks strategic vision for Hume • Dated land use directions • Need to get local policy for Hume ‘ahead of the game’ • Need more objectives under each heading e.g. Clause 21.03 Economy - there is only one objective under

the policy for employment • No direction for growth areas • Local Areas policy does not match up to what is happening on the ground – areas are developing differently

to what is in this policy, making this policy restrictive • The MSS is themed and spatial – this is found to be valuable • Potential to look at Hume in sub-regions also • Places of worship – insufficient local policy on this (Places of worship are being developed in industrial areas

– limited access to public transport. Or in residential areas – parking, traffic impacts and noise complaints). The same applies to Medical Centres and other discretionary uses in the residential zones. These miscellaneous uses may also be an issue in the growth areas – this will need further consideration

• Issues with the secondary uses of places (e.g. warehouse with an office in the industrial zone). • No guidance for growth, networks • Dutch use A,B,C (locations) 1,2,3 (uses) principle for the location of uses and development • Increased housing density (including new subdivisions) • Hume needs a housing policy based upon a Housing Strategy for the municipality – currently Hume does not

have one, but they have budget for one in the future

Hume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 A-2

LPPs

• Do not cover infill development • Industrial policy – too specific, needs to allow more flexibility • Landscaping, storm water, local native vegetation need local policies • Environment team is relying heavily on Clause 52.17 as there is no local native vegetation policy • Need a policy for non-residential uses in residential zones • LMCT licenses – Council has a problem with the location of some of these and the location and management

of kebab vans • Land fill applications • Cl 22.11 Neighbourhood shopping centres policy – need more specific guidance (on activity centres) • Hierarchy of activity centres – need more detail in the local policy • Review of how activity centres are expressed on the ground – the vision, urban design elements • Natural Heritage report and Pathways to Sustainability report need to be included into planning scheme

Others

• Council shouldn’t be giving car parking dispensation in industrial zones • Liveability is not clearly defined by Council • Need a network approach for activity centres • Integrating land use and transport • Policy on infill development is needed • Definitions – need definitions for particular uses, e.g. shop and retail premises • There should be hyperlinks between sections of the planning scheme

Zones

• Update zoning to reflect current land uses (e.g. in UGZ and CDZ) • No appropriate zone for native vegetation on private land (i.e. it is not public open space) • Schedules need to be updated • Restricted retail – no appropriate zone • Industrial zone – review of uses that are emerging e.g. convenience shops, offices

Overlays

• Need an overlay control for water catchments, ESO is not specific enough • Investigate the removal of DPO’s once development is complete • Rationalise of DPO schedules – there are 22 in the planning scheme • Policy direction should be in the MSS • Review of areas that should have a VPO

Provisions

Incorporate sustainability into Clause 55 etc

Hume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 A-3

2

Hume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 B

Appendix B

Workshop 2

Hume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 B-1

Appendix B Workshop 2 Workshop 2 - Non-planners, 25 March 2010

Summary of participant feedback

There were participants from the following areas of Council: • Engineering • Aged care and health • Landscape • Urban design • Environment • Open space • Community planning • Transit Cities • Economic Development

The issues raised in the workshop include the following: MSS/Local policy • Local policy is necessary – but it needs to be strengthened • Broadmeadows Transit City – needs to change designation to Central Activities District • The planning scheme is silent on the role of activity centres • Two storey development occurring in the CAD – which is an underdevelopment • Can’t be too flexible • The Councillors have no ownership of the MSS • ‘Planning‘ precincts/catchments need to be adopted – these are developing anyway due to economic forces • Planning ‘Frameworks’ are difficult to understand if not a planner • Need integration of Economic Development Strategy and Transport Strategy into the planning scheme • In order to develop local policies (such as the gaming policy) there needs to be extensive research to get

policies these types of policies developed and implemented (need to be supported by facts/figures).

Urban design issues

• Current provisions in the planning scheme are too discretionary • Use of interesting/active street frontages – it has been difficult to enforce this and the safer by design

guidelines

Social issues

• Absence of package liquor policy • Need policies that cover walkability, amenity and surveillance • Need to encourage improvements to the walking environment, e.g. shade, pleasant environment (i.e.

adequate road reserve for street tress), need to be responsive to the needs of elderly people (i.e. seating along walkways for people to stop and rest)

• Affordable housing - need a mix of two bedrooms to four bedroom houses, housing for aged persons • The Office of Housing housing is past its use by date • Social infrastructure – there is little vision for this in the MSS/Council Plan • Aged persons – design principles need to be considered

Hume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 B-2

• Aged people need access to the higher tiered activity centres (e.g. proximity to services, shops etc. accessed via walking)

• The planning scheme review – relating to content – needs to consider the Victorian Charter of Human Rights

Sustainability

• Council is trying to engrain sustainability into new infrastructure – e.g. constructing longer lasting footpaths (e.g. 30 year life rather than 10 year).

• Planning scheme is silent on the sustainability of built form (e.g. low cost housing, water tanks) • Water harvesting – helps with managing peak flows. With new developing areas water should be harvested • Pathways to sustainability should be incorporated into the planning scheme – this document should assist in

behavior change

Native vegetation

• Not enough weight in the Hume Planning Scheme for protecting native vegetation

Other

• Hume was using Development Guidelines in Greenfield areas – guidelines which have been adopted by Council but exist outside the planning scheme

• Consideration should be given to whether infill development should contribute to the costs of services and infrastructure (similar to developer contributions in growth areas)

• How do you forecast future development/demand for services? • No direction in the planning scheme for particular uses – e.g. Mosques in industrial zones • Transport framework needed for Hume’s road network – role of arterial and local arterial roads • Car parking – planning permits approved for a number of car spaces associated with a use, and then the

applicant puts signs up with car parking restrictions (e.g. number of hours). • Sustainable development – renewable energy • Need to encourage walking and cycling – need to change the current mobility ‘car’ culture • New schools have lots of car parking. Traditionally schools had less parking as more people used to walk. • Need to encourage of range of uses in neighbourhood activity centres to encourage more local walking and

cycling • Need to have safe cycling paths, not just footpaths • Public Arts Strategy – there has been funding for this. Place making, makes commercial places more vibrant

– which is beneficial for businesses and the community • Heritage – it is important that the places of heritage are preserved • Height and scale of buildings around Broadmeadows Central Activities District – this is a contentious

community issue – currently there are no height limits. The community is against two storey buildings let alone anything higher.

Hume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 C

Appendix C

Online Survey Responses

Hume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 C-1

Appendix C Online Survey Responses

Hume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 C-2

Hume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 C-3

Hume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 C-4

Hume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 C-5

Hume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 C-6

Hume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 C-7

Hume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 C-8

Hume Planning Scheme Review

1 September 2010 C-9

APPENDIX G – Council Plan commitments for Strategic Planning Department

Council Plan Commitments

The Council Plan (2009-2013) has committed to undertaking further strategic work in the 2009/10 financial year on a variety of issues of relevance to the Planning Scheme including: Theme 1: Council Leadership Strategy Number (1.1.1) Accountable Leadership

� Provide and document Development Plan Assessment Guidelines and Template

Strategy Number (blank): Accountable Leadership

� Contribute to high standards of corporate governance and decision making through the preparation of high quality reports to Council and Strategy and Policy Brief

Strategy Number (1.1.1) Accountable Leadership

� Review the Municipal Strategic Statement. (This was an incomplete 2008-09 annual action from the Council Plan 2006-2010, Revised 2008).

Theme 2: Prosperity of the City Strategy Number (2.1.4): Economy

• Assess Development Plan and Precinct Concept Plan for employment land in Folkestone and Merrifield employment precincts.

• Advocate for inclusion of Attwood Employment Land into UGB and development for employment purposes.

• Assess rezoning of Tullamarine Landfill and Buffer land for employment purposes.

• Work with Melbourne Airport to establish appropriate uses and development within the Airport Business Park

Strategy Number (2.1.6): Economy

• Finalise Precinct Structure Plans for Greenvale (R1 and R3) and Craigieburn (R2) in a form ready for introduction into the Hume Planning Scheme.

• Commence new Structure Plans arising from Melbourne @ 5 Million

Strategy Number (Blank): Economy

• Undertake Precinct Structure Plans for the proposed Hume Highway and northern Hume Industrial Precincts.

Strategy Number (Blank): Accountable Leadership

• Complete and implement the Sunbury Town Centre Structure Plan.

Strategy Number (Blank): Accountable Leadership

• Facilitate the development of Craigieburn Town Centre.

Strategy Number (Blank): Economy

• Undertake an activity centres strategy and implement the recommendations of the Hume Retail Strategy to guide the development of new and existing activity centres within Hume.

Strategy Number (Blank): Economy

• Advocate for the provision of key infrastructure to support job creation in Hume i.e. Outer Metropolitan Ring Road, to the State and Federal Government.

Strategy Number (Blank): Accountable Leadership

• Council will advocate for the provision of key infrastructure to support job creation in Hume, i.e. Outer Metropolitan Ring Road, to the State and Federal Government – a progress report on this action will be requested in December 2009 and June 2010.

Strategy Number (2.2.1-6): Transport

• Undertake an Integrated Transport Strategy for the Municipality.

Strategy Number (Blank): Transport

• Commence the implementation of the Sunbury Car Parking Strategy 2009-2010 actions.

Strategy Number (Blank): Transport

• Advocate for improved public transport and alternative transport options for the community.

Strategy Number (Blank): Transport

• Advocate for accessible car parking at transport interchanges – a progress report on this action will be requested in December 2009 and June 2010.

Strategy Number (Blank): Transport

• Council will advocate for key Hume transport projects to be funded through State and Federal Government, as well as funding for projects of a State and National priority (in conjunction with City Infrastructure) – a progress report on this action will be requested in December 2009 and June 2010.

Theme 4: Appearance of the City and Environment Strategy Number (4.2.1): Asset Management

• Work with developers for the provision and timely delivery of community infrastructure contributions

Specific Project (4.3.2): Natural Environment

• Apply the Native Vegetation Framework to preserve biodiversity in Precinct Structure Plan areas

Specific Project (4.3.3): Natural Environment

• Complete Stage 2 of the Hume Green Wedge Management Plan. (This was an incomplete 2008-09 annual action from the Council Plan 2006-2010, Revised 2008).